Conservative statistical post-election audits

Annals of Applied Statistics

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 550-581

  Stark, Philip B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditing; Elections; Hypothesis test; Sequential test

Indexed keywords

EID: 70450262949     PISSN: 19326157     EISSN: 19417330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1214/08-AOAS161     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Aslam, J. A., Popa, R. A. and Rivest, R. L. (2007). On auditing elections when precincts have different sizes. Available at, people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/AslamPopaRivest-OnAuditingElectionsWhenPrecinctsHaveDifferentSizes.pdf.
2. Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing., J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 57 289-300. Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1325392 JSTOR: links.jstor.org
3. Bjornlund, E. C. (2004)., Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, DC.
4. Dopp, K. and Stenger, F. (2006). The election integrity audit. Available at, uscountvotes.org/ucvInfo/release/ElectionIntegrityAudit-release.pdf.
5. Elections: Federal efforts to improve security and reliability of electronic voting systems are under way, but key activities need to be completed (2005). Technical Report GAO-05-956, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.
6. Elections: The nation's evolving election system as reflected in the November 2004 general election (2006). Technical Report GAO-06-450, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.
7. Estok, M., Nevitte, N. and Cowan, G. (2002)., The Quick Count and Election Observation. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Washington, DC.
8. Halvorson, M. and Wolff, L. (2007). Report and analysis of the 2006 post-election audit of Minnesotas voting systems. Available at, ceimn.org/files/CEIMNAuditReport2006.pdf.
9. Hite, R. C. (2007). Elections: All levels of government are needed to address electronic voting system challenges. Technical Report GAO-07-714T, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.
10. Hoeffding, W. (1956). On the distribution of the number of successes in independent trials., Ann. Math. Statist. 27 713-721. Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR80391 Zentralblatt MATH: 0073.13902 Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728178 Project Euclid: euclid.aoms/1177728178
11. Jefferson, D., Alexander, K., Ginnold, E., Lehmkuhl, A., Midstokke, K. and Stark, P. B. (2007). Post election audit standards report-evaluation of audit sampling models and options for strengthening Californias manual count. Available at, www.sos.ca.gov/elections/peas/final_peaswg_report.pdf.
12. McCarthy, J., Stanislevic, H., Lindeman, M., Ash, A., Addona, V. and Batcher, M. (2008). Percentage based vs. statistical-power-based vote tabulation auditing., The American Statistician 62 11-16. Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2416890 Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1198/000313008X273779
13. Norden, L., Burstein, A., Hall, J. L. and Chen, M. (2007). Post-election audits: Restoring trust in elections. Technical report, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University and Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), New, York.
14. National Association of Secretaries of State (2007). Post election audit procedures by state. Available at, nass.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=54.
15. Panel on Nonstandard Mixtures of Distributions (1989). Statistical models and analysis in auditing: Panel on nonstandard mixtures of distributions., Statist. Sci. 4 2-33.
16. Rivest, R. L. (2006). On estimating the size of a statistical audit. Available at, people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rivest-OnEstimatingTheSizeOfAStatisticalAudit.pdf.
17. Saltman, R. G. (1975). Effective use of computing technology in vote-tallying. Technical Report NBSIR 75-687, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
18. Siegmund, D. (1985)., Sequential Analysis: Tests and Confidence Intervals. Springer, New York. Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR799155
19. Stanislevic, H. (2006). Random auditing of e-voting systems: How much is enough? Available at, www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/VTTF/EVEPAuditing.pdf.
20. Stark, P. B. (2008a). Election audits by sampling with probability proportional to an error bound: Dealing with discrepancies. Available at, statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/ppebwrwd08.pdf.
21. Stark, P. B. (2008b). A sharper discrepancy measure for post-election audits., Ann. Appl. Statist. To appear. Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2524346 Zentralblatt MATH: 05591288 Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/08-AOAS161 Project Euclid: euclid.aoas/1215118528
22. Verified Voting Foundation (2007). Manual audit requirements. Available at, www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/stateaudits1007.pdf.
23. Wald, A. (2004)., Sequential Analysis. Dover, Mineola, NY.