Electronic Vote Counting: Where Did We Go Wrong?

[Wilms]

Electronic Vote Counting: Where Did We Go Wrong?

By Howard Stanislevic, VoteTrustUSA E-Voter Education Project

November 21, 2006

snip

In 1975 while working for the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Roy G. Saltman, authored a paper entitled, "Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying." In Appendix B of that seminal work, "Mathematical Considerations and Implications in the Selection of Recount Quantities", Saltman described a methodology for determining sample sizes to be used in independent audits of electronic vote counting systems which include optical scanners, punch card readers and touchscreen or pushbutton direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines with voter-verified paper audit trails.

snip

He also pointed out that the then current law in the state of California which called for a fixed audit percentage of only 1% of the state's precincts was inadequate, stating that, "recount percentages should increase as the opposing vote totals approach equality." In other words, narrower reported margins of victory require larger audits. Yet the 1% law is still on the books today and until recently, did not even include absentee ballots!

Federal legislation proposing a 2% audit has also been introduced, and some states have other fixed percentages in their auditing laws and regulations. None of these audits may be adequate to confirm the outcome of all races on the ballot, and some of them may actually be larger than necessary. The idea that they are better than nothing, which seems to be their only justification, is not particularly reassuring when the integrity of our democracy is at stake. Such laws should specify a probability of miscount detection or confidence level -- not a fixed auditing percentage. For example, a confidence level of 99% means there would be a 99% probability of detecting any miscount large enough to alter the outcome of a race.

Saltman was not only concerned with the mathematics of the auditing problem in 1975. He went on to say, "The selection of some precincts for recounting should be granted to candidates." This is a far cry from the "sore loser" status accorded candidates who question election results today despite the lack of meaningful audits (even where possible) and the absence of observable independent verification processes inherent in many electronic vote counting systems. According to Saltman, "Candidates' supporters and precinct workers are those persons most likely to have the keenest sense that a possible discrepancy exists." Few would disagree, but there still has to be something to audit to prove that such discrepancies exist; a hunch is not much to go on.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2067&Itemid=26

[Rageneau]

1. Our win was so big, their machines couldn't steal it all.