Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcCarthy, John
dc.contributor.authorStanislevic, Howard
dc.contributor.authorLindeman, Mark
dc.contributor.authorAsh, Arlene S.
dc.contributor.authorAddona, Vittorio
dc.contributor.authorBatcher, Mary
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:42.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:17:25Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:17:25Z
dc.date.issued2008-02-01
dc.date.submitted2010-07-02
dc.identifier.citationJohn McCarthy, Howard Stanislevic, Mark Lindeman, Arlene S Ash, Vittorio Addona, Mary Batcher. The American Statistician. February 1, 2008, 62(1): 11-16. doi:10.1198/000313008X273779.
dc.identifier.doi10.1198/000313008X273779.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47622
dc.description.abstractSeveral pending federal and state electoral-integrity bills specify hand audits of 1% to 10% of all precincts. However, percentage-based audits are usually inefficient, because they require large samples for large jurisdictions, even though the sample needed to achieve good accuracy is much more affected by the closeness of the contest than population size. Percentage-based audits can also be ineffective, since close contests may require auditing a large fraction of the total to provide confidence in the outcome. We present a plausible statistical frame-work that we have used in advising state and local election officials and legislators. In recent federal elections, this audit model would have required approximately the same effort and resources as the less effective percentage-based audits now being considered.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1198/000313008X273779
dc.subjectBiostatistics
dc.subjectEpidemiology
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.subjectStatistics and Probability
dc.titlePercentage-Based versus Statistical-Power-Based Vote Tabulation Audits
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleAmerican Statistician
dc.source.volume62
dc.source.issue1
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/749
dc.identifier.contextkey1380668
html.description.abstract<p>Several pending federal and state electoral-integrity bills specify hand audits of 1% to 10% of all precincts. However, percentage-based audits are usually inefficient, because they require large samples for large jurisdictions, even though the sample needed to achieve good accuracy is much more affected by the closeness of the contest than population size. Percentage-based audits can also be ineffective, since close contests may require auditing a large fraction of the total to provide confidence in the outcome. We present a plausible statistical frame-work that we have used in advising state and local election officials and legislators. In recent federal elections, this audit model would have required approximately the same effort and resources as the less effective percentage-based audits now being considered.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathqhs_pp/749
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pages11-16


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record