1 / 21

Post Election Vote Auditing

Post Election Vote Auditing. Fritz Scheuren University of Chicago. Murphy’s Corollary. If you did not check it, then it did go wrong!. Outline of Remarks. Systems Thinking Sample Vote Verification Forensic Statistical Additions Exit Polls Better Together. Systems Thinking.

holt
Download Presentation

Post Election Vote Auditing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Post Election Vote Auditing Fritz Scheuren University of Chicago

  2. Murphy’s Corollary If you did not check it, then it did go wrong!

  3. Outline of Remarks • Systems Thinking • Sample Vote Verification • Forensic Statistical Additions • Exit Polls • Better Together

  4. Systems Thinking • Appreciation of Complexity • No Single System Owner • Political Party Roles • Media Roles • Voters’ Trust and Participation

  5. Proactive Response Needed Benchmarking and Sharing What Works

  6. Trained Pollworker Tested Ballot Certified Equipment Trustworthy Voting System Secured Tabulation Educated Voter Verified Identity Audited Votes and Voter Surveys Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram

  7. Sample Vote Verification • Key to Accountability • Transparency and Randomness • Rules of Evidence (Florida?) • Build A Body of Practice

  8. Forensic Statistical Additions? • Exploring Official Results for anomalies • Confirming Outliers and Inliers • Linking Present to Past Patterns • Developing Lessons Learned Data Bases, Persisting

  9. Franklin Cuyahoga Hamilton Ohio Scatterplot of Kerry Difference Between Actual and Predicted Vs. The Total(Trending 84 - 04)

  10. Cuyahoga Scatterplot of Kerry Difference Between Actual and Predicted Vs. the Total(Grouping Precincts 00 - 04)

  11. Exit Polls • Warren Mitofsky • Not a Substitute for Sample Audits • A Weak Fitness for Use Standard • Badly Misunderstood, Redirect and Replace

  12. More on Refusal Versus Fraud Alternative – 2000 v. 2004 • Are Precincts with Gaps Different? • Data Does not Support this! • Actual Results Are Similar not Different • Scatterplot Shows Rough Similarity • Distributions Virtually Identical • Mitofsky “Bias in Refusals” Hypothesis Supported Instead

  13. Still More on Predictive Value of Exit Poll v. Actual Results • Another Look at Gap over time • 2004 Exit Poll v. 2004 Actual Gap • Versus 2000-2004 Change • Fraud Hypothesis would Predict • Gap is Correlated to Change • Correlation only 0.03 However

  14. Better Together • Cooperation Already High Among Election Officials • Bring in Skilled Outsiders, Statisticians. Computer Specialists, …, As You Have • Include and Inform Critics • Make Accountability Evident

  15. Media and Marketing • Approach Media Ahead of Time • Seize this Timely Moment • Stress New Tools, Learning Style • Conduct Demonstration Sample Audits and Get the Word Out

  16. National Election Scorecard • National Voter (Customer) Survey • Build on 2006 Ohio Proof of Concept • Put “Horror Stories” in Perspective

  17. Fully Auditable Election • Prepare prior data ahead of time, so analysis can be real-time • Continue to use Exit Polls but adjusting for the bias in them, if possible.

  18. More Examples • Create and train election officials in new process recording and Sample Vote Verification Standards • Make sure software is fully tested and as close to tamper proof as possible

  19. Many Thanks Scheuren@aol.com

More Related