Testimony to New York Supreme Court Judge Warshawsky about State Senate (SD7) Race

[Wilms]

Testimony Proffered to New York Supreme Court Judge Ira Warshawsky Regarding the November 2010 Senate Contest in NY Senate District 7

Philip B. Stark, 4 December 2010

snip

The 3% audit gives very little statistical confidence that a full hand count of the ballots would show Mr. Martins to be the winner. The audit results would not be surprising even if a full hand count would show Mr. Johnson to be the winner.

Three of seven audited machines had errors: roughly 43%. Net, the errors favored Mr. Martins: correcting them decreases the apparent margin.

Because the audit examined only 7 machines, there is a substantial possibility that the machine with the largest error was not one of the machines that was audited. Indeed, there's a 97% chance that auditing 7 of 249 machines won't check the machine with the largest error.

snip

Because the margin is so small compared to the possible errors, a very large percentage of machines needs to be audited to give strong evidence that Mr. Martins is indeed the winner. 3% is not sufficient. 8% is not sufficient. To have 90% statistical confidence that Mr. Martins won requires auditing a minimum of 90% of the machines selected randomly: an additional 218 machines.

This is true if the audit finds that those 218 machines have counted perfectly. If the audit of those 218 machines found many errors, still more machines would have to be audited.

Here are some links to news reports:

http://portwashington.patch.com/articles/supreme-court-certifies-7th-senate-race-for-martins-2
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/it-s-official-judge-declares-martins-victor-over-johnson-1.2516962
http://online.wsj.com/article/APdcf6dc2872e7425aaa027804b561aabe.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/nyregion/05elect.html

P.B. Stark. Last modified 9 December 2010.


http://statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/nysd7-4-12-10.htm

[Bill Bored]

1. Woah! So New York's elections are being decided on the basis of a 3% audit...

...when some of them need 90% audits, or MORE ? ? ?:wtf:

[Wilms]

2. And weren't the OpScan cheerleaders saying that paper ballots were available if there were any ?s.

So where are those faux-election-integrity types?

Have we heard a single peep out of NYVV save for a few bots bleeting nonsense about nothing to see here so move on?

I'll tell you where Bo & Co. are. Huddled in the corner they painted themselves into, soiling their knickers. They've got a SERIOUS no-win situation on their hands. They're likely praying we accept the computer-determined result in a thin-margined race and forget about it. How verified of them. Of course we could recount--by hand. In that case, we'll know the true winner--except for ballot security issues we're also exposed to. And regardless of the winner, tons of money will have to be spent to verify the results of a system that costs tons of money and, even with a paltry 3% audit, shows errors outside the HAVA/VVSG spec.

Come on Mr. Lipari. Come on down and sell us some more of your software dependent snake oil.

[Bill Bored]

3. Paper ballots are "available" in New York alright. It's the VOTE COUNTING that's not "available." nt

[BetterThanNoSN]

4. So weird...

...how the votes always fall in favor of the GOP. Just call me a coincidence theorist.