Here is why the problems which the CA SOS audit report claime

National ElectionData Archive P.O. B ox 6 82556 P ark C ity, UT 8 4068 phone: 4 35-658-4657 Response to “Post -Election A udit Standards Wor king G roup Report – E valuation of A udit Sampling M odels an d O ptions f or Strengthening California’ s M anual C ount”http://www.sos.ca.gov/ elections/peas/final_peaswg_report.pdf 8/3/2007 by Kathy D oppThe Secretary of S tate of California form ed a pos t-election a udit standards working group. O n July 27t h, 2007 t his audit working group re leased a report and re commendations “Post-Election Audit Standards Working G roup Re port – Evaluation of A udit Sampling M odels and O ptions for S trengthening Ca lifornia’s Manual Count ”. The California audit working group c laims, on pa ge one of its report, that current election a udit models do not address several vital probl ems with e lections. “Unfortunately, the statistical models that exist for de termining t he size of the random sample do not apply to California, because they r equire the random sample to be selected f rom the state as a whole. In California, cities, counties, and s pecial districts draw independent random samples. These models do not currently take into a ccount ove rvotes and unde rvotes, nor do they c over multi-winner elections. M oreover, the approaches that exist give confidence in the out come of the election onl y if no discrepancies are found. S till lacking i s a method t hat can de termine whether to trust the out ...