You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #45: I think your actual posts have been sloppy [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-17-10 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. I think your actual posts have been sloppy
When you change the terms of discussion from post to post, that is sloppy. Trying to figure out what a 1% audit can and can't do is a very different enterprise than defending the assertion that it is "useless." I don't know if you're actually defending that assertion, because you are changing the terms of discussion so that it is very hard to tell what you are saying.

Yes, I think in the CA example "we might be ok for state-wide..." is not a bad summary of that part (brief, of course) -- the manual tally isn't well designed for the purpose of correcting wrong outcomes, but if someone is wondering, say, if Prop 8 was straight, it gives a lot of information. And, yes, it's not very convincing for smaller contests. The ability to get partial recounts of a few precincts/batches (without paying for all the absentee ballots to be hand-sorted, for instance) would help a lot in getting a handle on how much error there might be in any one batch. (Unfortunately, short of laying out a Bayesian framework, there's no good way to quantify how useful it is.)

A 3% audit in New York ought to be about as useful as a 1% audit in California -- more or less, depending on the details of what gets audited. It's more like a smoke alarm than an actual risk-limiting audit -- as we've discussed, escalation on the county level doesn't make sense -- but as a smoke alarm it could be pretty good if done well. A 5% partial recount in Ohio is kind of similar, but only applies to one contest. If Florida picked a contest and audited it statewide, 1% would be kind of similar too. Connecticut's 10% audit isn't as good because it's 10% of a much smaller number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -Audits in Primary Elections? garybeck  Aug-05-10 07:27 PM   #0 
  - How many states have mandatory audits? And what are they? 1%?  Stevepol   Aug-05-10 08:19 PM   #1 
  - that doesn't answer my question but...  garybeck   Aug-05-10 08:43 PM   #2 
     - Caveat Emptor  Wilms   Aug-05-10 10:25 PM   #3 
     - I agree with what you're saying but that doesn't answer my question  garybeck   Aug-06-10 12:25 AM   #4 
     - I don't think that's "PERIOD" at all  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-06-10 07:57 AM   #8 
        - You say 1% is huge in CA, without suggesting a reported margin.  Wilms   Aug-06-10 11:08 AM   #10 
           - jeepers  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-06-10 11:41 AM   #11 
              - Lots of problems with audits though. (And I don't get paid to deal with them either!)  Bill Bored   Aug-06-10 12:51 PM   #14 
              - yeah, county-by-county escalation makes little sense  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-07-10 10:02 AM   #23 
                 - *cough*  Wilms   Aug-07-10 10:38 AM   #25 
              - Don't take it personnel.  Wilms   Aug-06-10 01:05 PM   #16 
                 - hang on, which state?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-06-10 08:38 PM   #20 
                    - What do we call medical treatments with low probability of helping?  Wilms   Aug-06-10 09:22 PM   #21 
                       - hmmmm  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-07-10 08:12 AM   #22 
                          - Seems like you're overemphasizing that an audit with low confidence could still reveal a problem.  Wilms   Aug-07-10 10:37 AM   #24 
                          - I'm hardly making that point at all  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-07-10 07:40 PM   #27 
                             - OK, then. Can you name any races with a 2% margin where an audit achieved >90% confidence?  Wilms   Aug-07-10 07:53 PM   #29 
                                - How 'bout a 2% margin in a US House, State Senate or State House (or Assembly) race?  Bill Bored   Aug-07-10 11:24 PM   #30 
                                   - Yep. If guess if we exclude President, US Senate, and Governor, it's really game over. n/t  Wilms   Aug-08-10 02:01 AM   #31 
                                      - Well there is the argument that if errors happened on EVERY machine, ANY audit would find some.  Bill Bored   Aug-08-10 03:06 AM   #34 
                          - NY's audit has already been gutted. The SBOE's version was dumb but the election law's is dumber!  Bill Bored   Aug-07-10 01:37 PM   #26 
                             - as long as we're waxing metaphorical  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-07-10 07:42 PM   #28 
                                - Being a bit harsh?  Wilms   Aug-08-10 02:24 AM   #32 
                                - Well if that's the best you can come up with...  Bill Bored   Aug-08-10 03:00 AM   #33 
     - AFAIK the best resource for this kind of question  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-06-10 07:32 AM   #7 
  - NY does. That's close enough to VT. nt  Bill Bored   Aug-06-10 01:17 AM   #5 
  - But do you know, generally, if primaries are included, or not? n/t  Wilms   Aug-06-10 02:51 AM   #6 
  - No, I don't. Some states definitely include them. NY, NC, maybe others. nt  Bill Bored   Aug-06-10 12:38 PM   #13 
  - do you know if they audit their primary elections? n/t  garybeck   Aug-06-10 10:27 AM   #9 
     - YES, as I said, NY audits primary elections. I'm not sure what the other states do. nt  Bill Bored   Aug-06-10 12:35 PM   #12 
     - Here's the NY audit law:  Bill Bored   Aug-06-10 01:01 PM   #15 
        - thanks very much!!!! n/t  garybeck   Aug-06-10 01:42 PM   #17 
           - You're welcome. You might also look at what CT does.  Bill Bored   Aug-06-10 01:53 PM   #18 
              - Thank Bill.  Wilms   Aug-06-10 02:25 PM   #19 
  - Kicking for audits with high confidence levels. Anyone got one? n/t  Wilms   Aug-14-10 02:05 PM   #35 
  - I've seen some where they audited up to about 75% of the vote to get to about 75% "confidence."  Bill Bored   Aug-15-10 12:53 AM   #36 
     - Well, I kind of figured that was the case, and the reason OTOH didn't respond.  Wilms   Aug-15-10 01:18 AM   #37 
        - you were?  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-15-10 01:59 PM   #38 
           - You're having a real tough time with this. Aren't you?  Wilms   Aug-15-10 02:47 PM   #39 
              - there go the goalposts again  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-16-10 11:03 AM   #40 
                 - How about running the same numbers for VT since that's what this thread was supposed to be about? nt  Bill Bored   Aug-16-10 08:13 PM   #41 
                 - Don't waste his time unless it's a real audit in VT.  Wilms   Aug-17-10 12:02 AM   #43 
                 - not even  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-17-10 08:31 AM   #44 
                    - Inconvenient truths prevent a direct reply?  Wilms   Aug-17-10 10:10 AM   #47 
                       - yadda yadda yadda  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-17-10 06:21 PM   #48 
                          - You didn't answer a single question. Pathetic.  Wilms   Aug-17-10 06:47 PM   #49 
                 - Wanting to know the confidence level of various elections isn't moving the "goal post".  Wilms   Aug-16-10 11:59 PM   #42 
                    - I think your actual posts have been sloppy  OnTheOtherHand   Aug-17-10 08:59 AM   #45 
                       - In other words, none of these audits provide high confidence levels. Correct?  Wilms   Aug-17-10 10:07 AM   #46 
                       - Ohio didn't provide for a proper escalation procedure, so it's no exception. nt  Bill Bored   Aug-17-10 10:43 PM   #51 
                          - Does NJ's audit law provide for escalation?  Wilms   Aug-20-10 04:33 AM   #53 
                             - By law, NJ's audit must meet certain requirements that would require escalation:  Bill Bored   Aug-20-10 12:04 PM   #54 
                                - OK. That's how it looked to me.  Wilms   Aug-23-10 02:03 AM   #55 
                                   - NJ's audit is the only one with a large chance of finding and correcting serious miscounts in all  Bill Bored   Aug-23-10 07:10 PM   #56 
                                      - Thanks Bill.  Wilms   Aug-31-10 11:08 PM   #57 
                       - So how 'bout Vermont then, since it's garybeck's thread?  Bill Bored   Aug-17-10 10:18 PM   #50 
                       - Of course Florida does not "pick a contest and audit it statewide." nt  Bill Bored   Aug-17-10 10:48 PM   #52 
  - OK. Jersey (and did someone say NC?) have statistical audits.  Wilms   Nov-01-10 09:12 AM   #58 
     - New Mexico. But don't count Jersey because they don't have paper ballots. nt  Bill Bored   Nov-01-10 07:25 PM   #59 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC