Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation. Also, check out our blog and twitter feed.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  Take Action  »  Resources  »  Election Audits


How to Make an Election Audit Statistically Significant

May 21st, 2005

Perhaps one of the most difficult questions to answer about how to make election systems secure and reliable is the question about how to make sure an audit of an election system is statistically sound.

Let's start with a simple hypothetical example of the town of Smallville--

Founded in 1805, Smallville is, not surprisingly, a small town that happens to have 100 eligible voters, all of whom vote each year on paper ballots in a single polling location with a single secure ballot box. Elizabeth Small, descendant of the town's founder Elijah Small, was recently re-elected to her fourth term as City Clerk and oversees counting of the paper ballots by representatives of both "major" political parties in Smallville. In Smallville's two hundred year history, there was only one known miscount of the paper ballots.

In a famous case where there was a difference of only one vote in the vote count, mayoral candidate Penny Lane demanded a recount, speculating that if a total of 100 eligible voters voted, there should be a difference of at least two votes if there was any difference at all in the count, unless a voter failed to vote for mayor. In fact, she was correct and Penny Lane ousted incumbent mayor Don Street in a run-off election conducted after the recount of the initial election showed a tie vote, 50-50, for mayor.

The Lane-Street election battle generated a lot of animosity in Smallville with representatives of both parties charging the other side of tampering with the vote count to gain advantage. So, the Smallville City Council decided it had to respond to the controversy by passing an audit and recount law that would ensure public confidence in results of the election and dissuade unscrupulous people from attempting election tampering or fraud. Since ballot secrecy was well-respected in Smallville and since everyone deposited their ballots into the same ballot box, the only way to conduct an audit or recount was to check all the ballots in the ballot box. Fortunately, it doesn't take that long for the Smallvilleans to verify a maximum of 100 ballots in their second count of the ballots each year under the new election audit law.

All was now swell in Smallville, but things were not nearly as bright in nearby Bigtown--

{more coming soon}

We have assembled additional resources below that address the issue of stastical significance in auditing of election systems.


Election Audit Summit Brings Together Statisticians, Election Officials and Advocates
by Pamela W. Smith, PresidentVerified Voting Foundation
November 7th, 2007

Security Watch: On Auditing Audit Trails
by Rebecca T. MercuriCommunications of the ACM
January 1st, 2003
It is incumbent upon us to examine our own auditing practices for their intrinsic vulnerabilities.

How Effective is an Occasionally-Used Paper Ballot?
by Justin MooreDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University
Even if a paper ballot is used infrequently and verified correctly a small percentage of the time, is leads to an incredibly high likelihood that machine errors will be caught. The cost-benefit tradeoffs of a voter-verified paper ballot trail are tremendous.

Announcements

August 26, 2010
On India’s Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map