Abstract

Risk-limiting post-election audits limit the chance of certifying an electoral outcome if the outcome is not what a full hand count would show. Building on previous work, we report on pilot risk-limiting audits in four elections during 2008 in three California counties: one during the February 2008 Primary Election in Marin County and three during the November 2008 General Elections in Marin, Santa Cruz and Yolo Counties. We explain what makes an audit risk-limiting and how existing and proposed laws fall short. We discuss the differences among our four pilot audits. We identify challenges to practical, efficient risk-limiting audits and conclude that current approaches are too complex to be used routinely on a large scale. One important logistical bottleneck is the difficulty of exporting data from commercial election management systems in a format amenable to audit calculations. Finally, we propose a bare-bones risk-limiting audit that is less efficient than these pilot audits, but avoids many practical problems.

Highlights

  • A decade after the 2000 presidential election fiasco, the “paper trail debate” has all but ended: More and more jurisdictions recognize that without indelible, independent ballot records that reliably capture voter intent, auditing election outcomes is impossible

  • Ginnold and Stark served on the California Secretary of State’s Post-Election Audit Standards Working Group [12] (PEASWG). Their experience made it clear that no existing audit method controlled the risk of certifying an incorrect outcome:2 There was no method to decide whether it was safe to stop auditing—given the discrepancies observed in the sample—or necessary to continue to a full manual count

  • Current audit laws and proposed legislation do not control the risk that an incorrect outcome will be certified

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A decade after the 2000 presidential election fiasco, the “paper trail debate” has all but ended: More and more jurisdictions recognize that without indelible, independent ballot records that reliably capture voter intent, auditing election outcomes is impossible. Ginnold and Stark served on the California Secretary of State’s Post-Election Audit Standards Working Group [12] (PEASWG). Their experience made it clear that no existing audit method controlled the risk of certifying an incorrect outcome: There was no method to decide whether it was safe to stop auditing—given the discrepancies observed in the sample—or necessary to continue to a full manual count. Stark [19, 20] was the first to develop risk-limiting audit methods Those methods work by collecting data, assessing whether those data give strong evidence that the outcome is right, and collecting more data if not.

Risk Limiting Audits Defined
What they are
The batches of ballots are counted by hand
What they are not
Existing State Legislation
Emerging State Legislation
Federal Legislation
Risk-Limiting Audits in California
Risk Calculation
Discussion
Findings
A Modest Proposal for Risk-Limiting Audits
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call