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

Reply #27: OK, now I know what you're talking about [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 Mon Nov-22-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. OK, now I know what you're talking about
Nothing like an expert consensus on that, but at least you're not the only person to suggest it! EDA put out a paper about that.

One problem with that approach is that you can't determine whether any machine actually counted its votes accurately, although you may be able to identify machines that weren't even close. If the 10% sample can be treated as random, that approach can provide pretty good evidence about who won -- although, like all fixed-percentage audits, it sometimes does more work than needed and sometimes not enough -- but it's very hard to detect small errors, much less isolate them to individual machines.

If we get to the point where we can audit individual ballots against how the machines counted them, then a random sample of individual ballots can work very well for checking the winner. But that requires us to have a way to identify individual ballots without compromising secrecy, which is a controversial subject. And it provides even less information about whether any one machine counted accurately, although at least it is capable of detecting "small" errors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -ERIE COUNTY NY: The problem wasn't the memory cards -- just the software that READS them! Bill Bored  Nov-18-10 12:09 AM   #0 
  - I live in Buffalo, looks like voting was a waste of my time, soon NY will go RED  Dragonfli   Nov-18-10 10:53 AM   #1 
  - Voting is not a waste of time. There's a chance our votes may be counted as cast - just no proof. nt  Bill Bored   Nov-18-10 01:49 PM   #3 
  - Without proof, money gets to win. They are only kept honest by proof  Dragonfli   Nov-18-10 02:05 PM   #4 
     - Don't get me wrong. Proof is good! LOVE THE PROOF! But if you don't vote...  Bill Bored   Nov-19-10 12:31 AM   #8 
  - Paranoid much?  TheWraith   Nov-18-10 02:18 PM   #5 
  - I'm a programmer, is knowledge paranoia? I know what can be done with the software.  Dragonfli   Nov-18-10 07:20 PM   #7 
  - Thanks, but I've been working with computers for about 20 years now.  TheWraith   Nov-19-10 03:27 AM   #11 
     - Silly assumption: Anything wrong in the software count will show up in the 3% canvass. nt  Bill Bored   Nov-20-10 12:42 AM   #13 
     - Silly assumption: that 2 plus 2 equals purple.  TheWraith   Nov-21-10 02:21 AM   #15 
        - The effects of cluster sampling would invalidate what I think you're trying to say.  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:25 PM   #21 
     - its about Public Confidence in Outcome of Election  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-20-10 08:20 PM   #14 
  - Paranoid NOT! "Paper ballots for recounts and auditing" = bait and switch!  Bill Bored   Nov-19-10 12:47 AM   #9 
     - Okay, how much knowledge do you have about statistics and the Board of Elections?  TheWraith   Nov-19-10 03:25 AM   #10 
        - Thanks for being a poll watcher but the 3% audit is bullshit. Read and learn:  Bill Bored   Nov-20-10 12:37 AM   #12 
           - Your link is irrelevant.  TheWraith   Nov-21-10 02:28 AM   #16 
              - 3% Audits are ok  BeFree   Nov-21-10 09:42 AM   #17 
              - that isn't "what the experts all say" at all  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-21-10 07:57 PM   #19 
                 - well  BeFree   Nov-21-10 09:32 PM   #22 
                    - A 10% audit of each and every machine...  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:44 PM   #24 
                    - 90% confidence  BeFree   Nov-21-10 10:18 PM   #25 
                       - Your math is not right for all elections because 10% is not right for all elections.  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 11:34 PM   #26 
                          - well Bill  BeFree   Nov-22-10 12:24 PM   #28 
                             - It's not simple and not doable. If it were, someone would do it.  Bill Bored   Nov-23-10 12:42 AM   #31 
                    - OK, now I know what you're talking about  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-22-10 07:00 AM   #27 
              - actually, think about this some more  OnTheOtherHand   Nov-21-10 07:53 PM   #18 
              - You are not very well informed. Try this:  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:13 PM   #20 
              - You're the one who clearly doesn't understand how a 3% audit works.  TheWraith   Nov-22-10 10:18 PM   #29 
                 - Dude, sorry to break this news to you but NY Election Law says to audit 3% of SCANNERS! nt  Bill Bored   Nov-23-10 12:28 AM   #30 
                    - Crickets. nt  Bill Bored   Nov-27-10 01:28 AM   #32 
                    - definitely NY needs better audits if using computer vote counting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-27-10 07:30 AM   #33 
                       - As I understand it, NC does full hand counts for the closest races.  Bill Bored   Nov-27-10 10:17 PM   #34 
                          - there's an IF in here  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-28-10 09:35 PM   #35 
                             - It seems hard to get if it relies on finding problems in a 3% sample.  Bill Bored   Nov-29-10 02:09 AM   #36 
              - More links (this time from the American Statistical Association):  Bill Bored   Nov-21-10 09:34 PM   #23 
  - low turnout a really bad idea. Consider Bell, California  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-18-10 03:03 PM   #6 
  - oh oh!  WillYourVoteBCounted   Nov-18-10 11:55 AM   #2 

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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