Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (27 comments)

"Tiered Election Audits" for the Lay Person

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)
Page 1 of 1 page(s)

opednews.com

A newly revised "Tiered Election Audits" paper for the lay person was released by the National Election Data. The new paper includes a section listing measures required to enable citizen oversight of election audits. Click here to read the brief four page Tiered Election Audits paper.

If the goal of elections is to ensure the will of the voters, then the goal of election audits is to ensure that voters determine who represents them. It seems simple. However, the US Congress may be planning election audits that are not designed to ensure that voters always determine election outcomes!

According to analysis by Kathy Dopp, President of National Election Data Archive,

"If Congress specifies a 2% fixed rate manual election audit, with a minimum audit of 6 vote counts, that would only result in a 56% chance for detecting when election outcomes are inaccurate in races with 5% margins between candidates; and would provide under 50% chance of detecting inaccurate election outcomes in races with 4.2% or less margins between candidates."

Dopp says, "We have a choice: To achieve fair elections now, or to put it off for another election cycle and hope that we will have another opportunity to achieve fair elections."

People who want to influence Congress to require sufficient election audits can act now by contacting their US Senators and House Representative and Representative Rush Holt D-NJ at

http://house.gov (put in your zip code)
http://senate.gov

to ask them to please read the "Tiered Election Audit".

Congressman Rush Holt D-NJ could be considering the same 2% flat rate audit that was in his former HR550. Holt's new proposal is due to be released to the House floor this week after which it will become difficult to alter its audit provisions.

A "tiered" election audit specifies audit percentages in a small table along with minimum numbers of vote counts that must be manually audited to ensure correct outcomes, according to specific margins between candidates, as seen in the initial election results. The closer a race, the more vote counts must manually counted to find a small amount of miscount that could wrongly alter the outcome.

A tiered election audit is a compromise between audits which simply require that "large enough size samples of vote counts are manually counted to ensure 99% scientific certainty that the election outcomes are correct" but which must be calculated individually for each race; and audits which simply require that a flat rate of "2% of all vote counts are manually counted" but are insufficient to ensure the integrity of election outcomes in all cases.

A tiered audit requires that a minimum "amount" of vote counts be manually audited for any particular margin to prevent audits from being subverted by aggregating ballots into a small number of larger-size vote counts which could cause a flat percentage audit to be ineffective. These required minimums sometimes will result in 100% hand counts of 100% of vote counts whenever it is necessary to ensure election outcome integrity.

Today's utterly flawed electronic voting systems provide no means to determine who did what and when on a voting machine after an election, so that a fraudster would never be caught. A flat 2% audit would announce to a vote fraudster exactly how and when fraud would be most likely to succeed in rigging an election.

Dopp encourages all election officials, election integrity activists, and U.S. Senators and Representatives who are concerned about election integrity to read "Tiered Election Audits" and to implement its recommendations.

To achieve the necessary effective public oversight over manual audits of elections, audits must be independent, verifiable, transparent, scientific, and used to detect and correct any errors found in initial election results that might wrongly put a candidate into office that was not selected by voters.

http://www.house.gov/
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

The possible consequences could be dire if insufficiently audited U.S. elections remain wide-open to vote fraud and innocent miscount in the upcoming 2008 elections.

Please help us ensure the future by taking action now.

--

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Please pass legislation requiring tiered election audits.

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://ElectionArchive.org

Founder and President of US Count Votes, dba The National Election Data Archive and volunteer for honest, accurately counted elections since 2003. Masters degree in mathematics with emphasis on computer science. Has written numerous academic and (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Editor

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
27 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

There is a cheaper, more effective way, you know, Kathy. by Mark E. Smith on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:48:13 AM
That is not one of the choices Mark by Kathy Dopp on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:30:39 AM
When did you decide what the choices are, Kathy? by Mark E. Smith on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:20:00 PM
No I am saying that that is NOT an option now in the US by Kathy Dopp on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 1:03:44 PM
Kathy, I'm sorry to break this to you, by Mark E. Smith on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 2:14:17 PM
Uhhhh, I don't think he failed the reading by Phil Lindsey on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 2:21:46 PM
I understand that you do not want fair elections in 2008 by Kathy Dopp on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 2:31:14 PM
Your elections are *not* fair by Phil Lindsey on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 3:38:19 PM
I get it by Jim Eldon on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 2:43:40 PM
Why do you not want fair elections in 2008? by Kathy Dopp on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 3:26:33 PM
I will not dodge the question by Jim Eldon on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 4:55:57 PM
You are Provably Incorrect & are Mischaracterizing by Kathy Dopp on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 5:05:34 PM
Could you kindly do a favor? by Phil Lindsey on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 5:28:42 PM
Thanks for the correction by Kathy Dopp on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 6:43:03 PM
Don't be so hard on yourself, Kathy. by Mark E. Smith on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 8:13:51 PM
You are mischaracterizing Why don't you want fair elections? by Kathy Dopp on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 8:42:36 PM
Somebody please buy Kathy a CD player. by Mark E. Smith on Wednesday, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:00:11 PM
Here you go, Kathy. by Mark E. Smith on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 1:45:26 AM
Wow. Reposted Paul Lehto's Entire Article Here! by Kathy Dopp on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 2:15:00 AM
Here's your answer, Kathy. by Mark E. Smith on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 6:35:06 AM
Again your 100% mischaracterizations show you lack honesty by Kathy Dopp on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:03:27 PM
for every pheasant you see, there's a covey in the field. by cliff567 on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 4:43:38 AM
I agree 100% with Adams, why don't you? by Kathy Dopp on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:05:48 PM
simple question by Jim Eldon on Friday, Jan 26, 2007 at 12:53:14 AM
Good Question - Several Reasons by Kathy Dopp on Friday, Jan 26, 2007 at 1:44:31 AM
follow-up comments by Jim Eldon on Saturday, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:39:13 AM
Your comments are factually inaccurate, illogical, etc. by Kathy Dopp on Saturday, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:52:56 AM