"Challenge" Audits vs "Random" Audits..

[Junkdrawer]

Assuming that, due to the emerging controversy, there is some kind of Voting Machine "Reform" coming, which do you see as the better auditing method:

"Random" Audits: Precincts are chosen "at random" to be audited.

"Challenge" Audits: Each candidate gets to pick a certain percentage of precincts to be audited.

After the dog-and-pony show that was Ohio, I would prefer "challenge" audits.

Oh, and when should these audits be done; before or after the official results are posted?

[3 DanO]

1. We should have both

The counties need to conduct random audits to look for unexpected problems, to measure the accuracy of the voting process and as a deterrent to fraud. The challenge audits should be provided to any candidate or voter group willing to pay for the audit (refunded if the audit shows a significant discrepancy). Whenever a major change is made to the voting procedures or equipment the audits should be expanded.

ALL results should be posted. Including the individual precinct tallies and the results of every count at every level. The election results should not be final until all recounts audits and challenges have been completed.