2002 and 2004 US House Election Contests Post-Election Audit C

WORKING D RAFT – CO MPARISON O F U S R EP. HOLT’S 3, 5, 10% A UDIT P LAN WIT H 99% CO NFIDENCE A UDITS12002 an d 2004 U S H ouse E lection C ontests Post -Election A udit C omparison: Holt’s (3, 5, 10%) A udits vs. 99% C onfidence A uditsBy K athy D opp, kathy.dopp@gm ail.com H olt’s 3, 5, 10% pos t-e lection a udits treat vot ers and c andidates une qually by provi ding w idely va rying c hances of de tecting i naccurate election out comes, ranging from as low as at least a 10% chance all the w ay t o a vi rtually 100% chance in di fferent U .S . House di stricts. On t he ot her ha nd, 99% confidence audits us e a sample size 2 002 Election 2 004 ElectionUS House Contests - calculated t o a lways provi de at least a 99% chance for Comparison of Holt's 99% 99% detecting t he smallest amount of m iscount that could c hange Election Audits vs. 99% Holt 3 , 5, 10% Holt 3 , 5, 10% Confidence Confidence the election out come if s uch oc curs, thus treating a ll Confidence Audits Audits AuditsAudit w/ 1% Audit w/ 1% candidates and vot ers equally. minimum minimummin chance to detect outcome-changing 10.0% 99.1% 40.7% 99.1% H olt’s 3, 5, 10% e lection a udit amounts oft en a udit a larger miscount number of pre cincts than i s ne cessary t o provi de at least a average chance to detect 99% chance of de tecting out come-c hanging m iscount. outcome-changing 97.7% 99.9% 99.2% 99.9%miscountYet, as shown i n t he table at left, Holt’s audit amounts are ...