Statistical Analysis of the Post-Election Audit Data 2014 August Primary Elections

Posted: December 30th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Statistical Analysis | Tags: , , , , , ,

The Center for Voting Technology Research (VoTeR Center) at the School of Engineering of the University of Connecticut received the data gathered in the post-election audit performed in the State of Connecticut following the August 12, 2014 election. The audit involved the randomly selected 10% of the districts and the audit returns were conveyed by the Office of the Secretary of the State (SOTS) to the VoTeR Center on December 4, 2014. The audit data received by the Center contains 305 records, where each record represents information about a given candidate: date, district, machine seal number, office, candidate, machine counted total, hand counted total of the votes considered unquestionable by the auditors, hand counted total of the votes considered questionable by the auditors, and the hand counted total, that is, the sum of undisputed and questionable ballots. This report contains several statistical analyses of the audit returns and recommendations.
Read the rest of this entry »


Post-Election Audit of Memory Cards for the November 6, 2012 Connecticut Elections

Posted: June 23rd, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Post Election | Tags: , , , , ,

The Center for Voting Technology Research (VoTeR Center) at the School of Engineering of the University of Connecticut performed post-election audit of the memory cards for the Accu-Vote Optical Scan (AV-OS) tabulators that were used in the November 6, 2012 elections. The cards were programmed by LHS Associates of Salem, New Hampshire, and shipped to Connecticut districts.

Cards were submitted for two reasons per instructions from the SOTS Office (a) the 10% of the districts that were randomly selected for the post-election hand-counted audit as well as any districts that were interested in participating in the audit were asked to send their cards for the post-election technological audit, and (b) any card was to be submitted if it appeared to be unusable. Given that the cards were submitted without consistent categorization of the reason, this report considers all unusable cards to fall into category (b).

The Center received 578 memory cards from 286 districts (as of March 15, 2013). This is the largest number of cards submitted since 2008. Among these cards, 375 (64.9%) fall into category (a). All of these 375 cards were correctly programmed. Out of 375 cards, 174 contain completed elections (the rest were not used in the elections). There remaining 203 cards (35.1% of all cards) were found to be unusable by the AV-OS, thus falling into category (b). Among those, 192 cards contained apparently random (or ‘junk’) data, 7 cards were unusable by AV-OS, but did not contain random data (this requires further investigation), 4 cards were formatted using AV-OS utility, however, they were not programmed. None of these cards are usable by the AV-OS for the purpose the election. Given that such cards were not selected randomly, we estimate that the percentage of unusable cards is between 6.7% and 17.7% in this audit, and this is consistent with prior audit results.
Read the rest of this entry »


Post-Election Audit of Memory Cards for the August 14, 2012 Connecticut Primary Elections

Posted: October 16th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Post Election | Tags: , , , , ,

The Center for Voting Technology Research (VoTeR Center) at the School of Engineering of the University of Connecticut performed post-election audit of the memory cards for the Accu-Vote Optical Scan (AV-OS) tabulators that were used in the August 14, 2012 elections. The cards were programmed by LHS Associates of Salem, New Hampshire, and shipped to Connecticut districts.

Cards were submitted for two reasons per instructions from the SOTS Office (a) the 10% of the districts that are the subject of post-election hand-counted audit are randomly selected by the SOTS Office and asked to send their cards for the post-election technological audit, and (b) any card was to be submitted if it appeared to be unusable. Given that cards in category (a) belong to randomly selected districts and were used in the election, while all cards in category (b) were supposed to be submitted, and that the cards were submitted without consistent categorization of the reason, this report considers all unusable cards to fall into category (b).

The Center received 86 memory cards from 66 districts. Among these cards, 44 (51.2%) fall into category (a). All of these 44 cards were correct. Out of these cards, 16 cards show elections, with 15 cards that were actually used on Election Day (one card shows an election on a different date). There are 42 cards (48.8% of all cards) that were found to be unusable by the AV-OS, thus falling into category (b). All of these cards contained apparently random (or ‘junk’) data. These cards were unreadable by the tabulators and could not have been used in an election. Given that such cards were not selected randomly, we estimate that the percentage of unusable cards is between 1.4% and 15.9% in this audit, and this is consistent with prior audit results.
Read the rest of this entry »


Statistical Analysis of the Post-Election Audit Data 2011 November Election

Posted: June 7th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Statistical Analysis | Tags: , , , , , ,

The Center for Voting Technology Research (VoTeR Center) at the School of Engineering of the University of Connecticut received the data gathered in the post-election audit performed in the State of Connecticut following the November 2011 election. The audits involved the randomly selected 10% of the districts and the audit returns were conveyed by the Office of the Secretary of the State (SOTS) to the VoTeR Center on December 22nd of 2011. The audit data received by the Center contains 887 records, where each record represents information about a given candidate: date, district, machine seal number, office, candidate, machine counted total, hand counted total of the votes considered unquestionable by the auditors, hand counted total of the votes considered questionable by the auditors, and the hand counted total, that is, the sum of undisputed and questionable ballots. This report contains several statistical analyses of the audit returns and recommendations.

The VoTeR Center’s initial review of audit reports prepared by the towns identified a number of returns with unexplained differences between hand and machine counts. Audit returns included 45 records with discrepancies higher than 5, with the highest reported discrepancy of 40. It is worth noting that 75% (30 out of 45) of the records that were subject to the follow up investigation already contained information indicating that the discrepancies were due to the human error. Following this initial review the SOTS Office performed additional information gathering and investigation of those 45 records. The final information was conveyed to the Center on May 18th of 2012. The rest of the records (842 out of 887) discussed in this audit report are the original records reported by the towns.
Read the rest of this entry »