Reply #26: C'mon Febble are you actually thingins this through? the more you cheat the smaller the sample size

[Land Shark]

for the audit because it is based on winning percentage.

At least you have to admit that this sends an unfortunate message to cheaters.

So, as long as I'm willing to cheat big, I know my audit percentage is 3% of precincts. One can calculate then how much and in what styles one can cheat. Can you do this math, Febble, for us, and pursue it with the same vigor in which you are gamely trying to defend the new Holt bill you've not read?

I'm also asking you and Garybeck to respond to my Arthur Anderson point: that even outside auditors as big as a huge accounting firm lose their objectivity when they also have consulting fees at stake because they have an incentive to keep the client happy, and for the same taken government auditors have an incentive, and a strong one, to keep their fellow government servants happy, funded, etc. That incentive is significant in all cases but it is especially strong when the elections officials or other government officials are appointing the auditors, as with the new Holt bill's committee of 7 or more to oversee audits...

More on the problem of govt recounting itself or auditing itself in discussion of the recent convictions in Ohio for recount rigging here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...