I think that with this 2 percent audit, it will be used by elections officials
and parroted in the media to "prove" that the election went "fine."
This is precisely what will happen, based on the sum total of our experience and just a little cynical wisdom. Because:
Elections Do Not Take Place In The Laboratory
This is why we're falling into the trap if we get caught up on the 2% NUMBER. The NUMBER is not the major problem, the way the sample is designed (sampling 2% of precincts) is the problem.
--Jonathan Simon, Verified Vote 2004
in response to an opposing comment, Bev Harris writes:
I have read his bill (HR 550) in detail. The issue is the audits. I do not recommend that
citizens enable a federal law that will put a 2 percent cap on the right to
audit, and worse -- hand the right to audit over to the EAC, an organization
led by political appointees and populated with some of the worst of the
elections industry perps who got us into this mess in the first place.
I see the hand of computer scientists in designing the audits, and I see the
hand of politicians, but what I do not see is two things:
1) CPAs -- especially forensic CPAs -- and statisticians. Can you provide the
name of any forensic CPA or statistician (not person who has taken statistics;
what I'm looking for here is a real statistician) who believes the "audit" in
the Holt bill is meaningful?
And even if such were found and corroborated your belief that the audit is
meaninful, we're still missing the second item:
2) The preservation of our civil right to count ALL the ballots.
Turning the right to "audit" over to the EAC does not enable citizen oversight.
The position of Black Box Voting is that citizen oversight is what
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).