Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Testimony to New York Supreme Court Judge Warshawsky about State Senate (SD7) Race

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
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 04:40 PM
Original message
Testimony to New York Supreme Court Judge Warshawsky about State Senate (SD7) Race

Testimony Proffered to New York Supreme Court Judge Ira Warshawsky Regarding the November 2010 Senate Contest in NY Senate District 7


Philip B. Stark, 4 December 2010

snip

The 3% audit gives very little statistical confidence that a full hand count of the ballots would show Mr. Martins to be the winner. The audit results would not be surprising even if a full hand count would show Mr. Johnson to be the winner.

Three of seven audited machines had errors: roughly 43%. Net, the errors favored Mr. Martins: correcting them decreases the apparent margin.

Because the audit examined only 7 machines, there is a substantial possibility that the machine with the largest error was not one of the machines that was audited. Indeed, there's a 97% chance that auditing 7 of 249 machines won't check the machine with the largest error.

snip

Because the margin is so small compared to the possible errors, a very large percentage of machines needs to be audited to give strong evidence that Mr. Martins is indeed the winner. 3% is not sufficient. 8% is not sufficient. To have 90% statistical confidence that Mr. Martins won requires auditing a minimum of 90% of the machines selected randomly: an additional 218 machines.

This is true if the audit finds that those 218 machines have counted perfectly. If the audit of those 218 machines found many errors, still more machines would have to be audited.

Here are some links to news reports:

http://portwashington.patch.com/articles/supreme-court-...
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/it-s-official...
http://online.wsj.com/article/APdcf6dc2872e7425aaa02780...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/nyregion/05elect.html

P.B. Stark. Last modified 9 December 2010.


http://statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/nysd7-4...

Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-10 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Woah! So New York's elections are being decided on the basis of a 3% audit...
...when some of them need 90% audits, or MORE ? ? ? :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And weren't the OpScan cheerleaders saying that paper ballots were available if there were any ?s.
So where are those faux-election-integrity types?

Have we heard a single peep out of NYVV save for a few bots bleeting nonsense about nothing to see here so move on?

I'll tell you where Bo & Co. are. Huddled in the corner they painted themselves into, soiling their knickers. They've got a SERIOUS no-win situation on their hands. They're likely praying we accept the computer-determined result in a thin-margined race and forget about it. How verified of them. Of course we could recount--by hand. In that case, we'll know the true winner--except for ballot security issues we're also exposed to. And regardless of the winner, tons of money will have to be spent to verify the results of a system that costs tons of money and, even with a paltry 3% audit, shows errors outside the HAVA/VVSG spec.

Come on Mr. Lipari. Come on down and sell us some more of your software dependent snake oil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-15-10 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Paper ballots are "available" in New York alright. It's the VOTE COUNTING that's not "available." nt
Edited on Wed Dec-15-10 02:27 AM by Bill Bored
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BetterThanNoSN Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-10 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. So weird...
...how the votes always fall in favor of the GOP. Just call me a coincidence theorist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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