2% is not enough.

[garybeck]

(NOTE: I spefically ask that this thread NOT be used to discuss the problems and/or virtues of HR550. there are many other threads on this.)


Rush Holt, in one of his responses to the opposition of HR550 (a bill which attempts to increase the security of our electronic voting systems) said:

"Those who believe the federal 2 percent minimum audit requirement should be higher should join me in getting the House Administration Committee to act on my bill, and then push for an amendment to increase the percentage."

Is there a coordinated effort ready to push for the amendment if the opportunity arises? I also think it is harmless to start pushing for the increase in percentage now -- why wait until we have to make an ammendment? Does anyone know of an existing petition people can sign to increase the percentage? Or of any existing coordinated effort(s) to push for this.

if not, look for it on the solar bus soon

(NOTE: I spefically ask that this thread NOT be used to discuss the problems and/or virtues of HR550. there are many other threads on this. I am only interested in talking about an effort to increase the minimum, for those who want one.)

[Land Shark]

1. the bill says "at least 2%"

maybe the language that would say "that required for a scientifically and statistically valid audit of at least 2%" would incorporate the additional conditions that are flexible to the particular conditions. that way we don't have to define the audit parameters for 'all time' right now.

[garybeck]

2. yes

I think leaving it open for certain parts to be "interpreted" is a good idea too, but I also think it is important to ask for the "at least 2%" to be changed emphatically. Especially since we have been invited to do so. My gut tells me to ask for 10%, and feel like we accomplish something if we get 5%.

[Land Shark]

4. it all depends on the size of the state, # of precincts, etc.

no point in making one size fits all. "scientifically and statistically valid" plus a tight margin of error would do it. Second element has to be worked in for legislative purposes. No sense in have a 10% audit in Wyoming, which may require 17%, or in CA which may only require 1%.

[BeFree]

3. Explain, please

What exactly is meant by a 2% audit.

Is it 2% of the votes in any one precinct?

If so, what happens when, say out of 1000 votes, the machine spits out 50% for and 50 against, then a 2% audit of those thousand votes (20) finds a 15/5 split?

[Land Shark]

5. usually it means 2% on an entire precinct basis

but 2% of the votes randomly selected woudl also do the same job, pretty much, believe it or not, if one is trying to test the statewide result, which is not what most audits seek to do

[garybeck]

6. 2% of the precincts

most agree it is not the best way to do it. regardless, increasing the percentage would be better than not.

[BeFree]

7. Stiil not clear enough

How will the 2% be audited? How will it be chosen?

I guess what I am saying is that if you want a discussion, the first thing to do is to tell dunderheads like me just what the hell it is you are talking about.

I've been around, and still need to be edumacated about this 2% audit. Imagine the poor souls out there who don't have a clue?

Peace.

[garybeck]

10. okey, my pleasure to explain.

auditing, by definition, is manually counting some of the votes by hand, and checking them against the machine counts. the samples are chosen at random.

currently there is no auditing whatsoever. the HR550 bill proposes to randmonly select 2% of the precincts, including at least one per county. the entire precinct is selected by random and hand counted. if there are discrepancies outside an acceptable level, a larger hand count would be initiated.

most people I talk to are unhappy with the way the bill is worded for many reasons and one of them is that 2% is not a large enough sample to reasonably ensure that fraud is not taking place. and there are also some people who do not want to support anything other than 100% hand counted paper ballots, but that discussion takes place elsewhere.

Rush Holt, the author of the bill, has responded to this concern by inviting people to push for an ammendment to the bill favoring a larger sample.

you can read the text of the bill here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-550

I am definitely not an expert on it but there are many discussions on this board that you can find many opinions on the bill, by searching for HR550.

The sad thing about it is, it has little chance of even going for a vote in the house unless the Dems take over. The repubs have kept this locked in committee for several years.

[kster]

8. What is this audit

auditing?

[garybeck]

9. the vote counts. n/t