The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.05 - Sept.-Oct. (2012 vol.10)
pp: 42-49
Philip B. Stark , University of California, Berkeley
Risk-limiting audits provide statistical assurance that election outcomes are correct by manually examining portions of the audit trail—paper ballots or voter-verifiable paper records. This article sketches two types of risk-limiting audits, ballot-polling audits and comparison audits, and gives example computations. These audits do not require in-house statistical expertise.
Privacy, Security, Manuals, Nominations and elections, Software, Electronic voting, Special issues and sections, hypothesis tests, election verification, election integrity, sequential sampling
Mark Lindeman, Philip B. Stark, "A Gentle Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits", IEEE Security & Privacy, vol.10, no. 5, pp. 42-49, Sept.-Oct. 2012, doi:10.1109/MSP.2012.56
1. R. Rivest, “On the Notion of 'Software Independence' in Voting Systems,” Philosophical Trans. Royal Soc. A, vol. 366, no. 1881, 2008, pp. 3759–3767.
2. P. Stark, “Risk-Limiting Vote-Tabulation Audits: The Importance of Cluster Size,” Chance, vol. 23, no. 3, 2010, pp. 9–12.
3. P.B. Stark and D.A. Wagner, “Evidence-Based Elections,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 10, no. 5, 2012, pp. 33–41.
4. J. Calandrino, J. Halderman, and E. Felten, “Machine-Assisted Election Auditing,” Proc. 2007 Usenix/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop (EVT 07), Usenix Assoc., 2007; calandrinocalandrino.pdf.
5. J. Benaloh et al., “SOBA: Secrecy-Preserving Observable Ballot-Level Audit,” Proc. 2011 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 11), Usenix Assoc., 2011; Benaloh.pdf.
6. K. Johnson, “Election Certification by Statistical Audit of Voter-Verified Paper Ballots,” 2004; .
7. A. Wald, “Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 16, no. 2, 1945, pp. 117–186.
8. P. Stark, “Super-Simple Simultaneous Single-Ballot Risk-Limiting Audits,” Proc. 2010 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 10), Usenix Assoc., 2010; Stark.pdf.
9. P. Stark, “CAST: Canvass Audits by Sampling and Testing,” IEEE Trans. Information Forensics and Security, vol. 4, no. 4, 2009, pp. 708–717.
10. A. Cordero, D. Wagner, and D. Dill, “The Role of Dice in Election Audits—Extended Abstract,” IAVoSS Workshop Trustworthy Elections (WOTE 06), 2006; .
11. P. Stark, “A Sharper Discrepancy Measure for Post-Election Audits,” Annals of Applied Statistics, vol. 2, no. 3, 2008, pp. 982–985.
12. P. Stark, “Efficient Post-Election Audits of Multiple Contests: 2009 California Tests,” Proc. 2009 Conf. Empirical Legal Studies,3 Aug. 2009; http://ssrn.comabstract=1443314.
13. M. Lindeman, P. Stark, and V. Yates, “BRAVO: Ballot-Polling Risk-Limiting Audits to Verify Outcomes,” Proc. 2012 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 12), Usenix Assoc., 2012; evtwote12-final27.pdf.
14. M. Higgins, R. Rivest, and P. Stark, “Sharper P-Values for Stratified Post-Election Audits,” Statistics, Politics, and Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2011, art. 7.
15. T. Magrino et al., “Computing the Margin of Victory in IRV Elections,” Proc. 2011 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 11), Usenix Assoc., 2001; Magrino.pdf.
29 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool