How Many Ballots Do You Have To Count To Know Whether An Election Was Rigged?
This election day, American voters will decide the futures of all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, as well as 36 in the Senate. Thirty-six states will choose their governors, and 87 of 99 state legislative bodies will hold votes on their hundreds of members. That’s a lot of voting, a lot of happy winners, and a lot of unfortunate losers.
It’s easy to imagine that at least some of those losers will suspect funny business at the voting booths. Identification rules at play in 2014 address the specter of fraudulent voters, but history shows that candidates have much more to fear from faulty or rigged ballots (just ask Al Gore).
When a U.S. election is challenged, the response is often a full recount of all votes cast. But recounts fail too — and losers don’t really care about exact numbers, Phillip Stark, an expert in statistical vote monitoring, tells Popular Science.
Imagine in an election of 1,000 voters, you just lost your deputy dog catcher race 299-701. But scandal strikes: a video reveals the town ballot-counter rushing on the day of the first count. A recount reveals a disparity: you didn’t lose 299-701, you lost 300-700!
When votes cast are checked against votes counted, you inevitably find at least one error, in even small samples.
But sitting back in your chair at the campaign headquarters, staring up at the shrunken, sagging victory balloons you never dropped from the ceiling, you think: What’s the point? The counter went through all that extra trouble and you still miss out on the fat paycheck and the glory of netting wayward hounds.
If, instead of secretly recording the ballot-counter and forcing a full recount (which can take weeks in larger elections), local officials had just checked up on the election to probe for errors, you might be satisfied, and voters could be more confident in the whole system.
Statistically speaking, the town council could have ordered just 100 ballots randomly recounted out of the 1,000. If the election was honest, then about 70 of those ballots should go to your opponent, and 30 to you. Even a sample of 20 that produced 6 for you might be reassuring, and would provide a huge benefit of election security with minimal effort. You just have to ask yourself how sure you want to be you before you’ll accept that you lost, even if you do encounter problems.
When votes cast are checked against votes counted, Stark says, “You pretty much inevitably find at least one error”, in even small samples. A method he developed along with other experts anticipates those errors while still producing strong reassurances for candidates and voters.
This process is called a Risk Limiting Audit. The best audits, in place in some states, use truly random population samples and only count vanishingly small portions of the total vote count. The larger the difference in reported results, the smaller the size of the audit necessary. Legislators need only to decide, as a percentage, how confident they want the auditors to be when they report their results. The auditors then count ballots until they reach that mathematical certainty. Stark says in a national presidential election, auditors should only have to count about 250 ballots per state to be 90 percent sure the results are reported properly. (If you like high-level math, you can find a more rigorous explanation of the statistics here.)
Of course, the world and its bureaucrats have a habit of complicating matters for auditors. Stark says most states do terrible jobs of storing and accounting for ballots after elections, introducing statistical noise to the audit. In other states, legislators handpick a county for an audit, disrupting the necessary randomness. Still, election monitoring moves forward. In the future, better voting machines that incorporate audits right into their systems could help in the fight against fraud. One such machine could appear in Austin, Texas, in coming elections.
(责任编辑:行业动态)
-
Carbon neutrality law violates basic rights: Constitutional Court
South Korea's carbon neutrality law does not conform with the Constitution because the absence ...[详细] -
Conservative groups sue to make pandemic voting even harder.
Slate is making its essential coronavirus coverage free for all readers. Subscribe to support our jo ...[详细] -
It wasn’t Roberts who changed this term, it was the cases SCOTUS heard.
Despite what you may have heard, the chief justice of the United States is no secret liberal. Yes, h ...[详细] -
Thousands of Tesla Model X and S vehicles recalled over airbag defect
Some Tesla Model X and S vehicles from 2021 could have an airbag issue.A recall filed through the Na ...[详细] -
Weather update for second Pak vs Ban second Test match day one
ListentoarticleThe second Test between Pakistan and Bangladesh, part of the ICC World Test Champions ...[详细] -
Twitter may charge users $20 per month to be verified
Twitter's new "Chief Twit" Elon Muskis reportedly considering making verification a Twitter Bluefeat ...[详细] -
本报讯摊点设置整齐有序、垃圾入袋不乱扔……9月4日,记者在市区迎新街临时便民摊点处看到,这里秩序井然,地面干净卫生。附近的蜀天农贸市场兴贸店还没修建时,这条街便是一个临时的农贸市场,充斥着各种摊位。为 ...[详细]
-
5G! It's the new 4G!We know 5G speeds are cool and help you find things online super fast, but what ...[详细]
-
全国土壤普查办抽验组到广东开展土壤普查质量抽验_南方+_南方plus8月17-19日,全国土壤普查办质量抽验组到广东开展第三次全国土壤普查质量抽验工作,抽验组由生态环境部华南环境科学研究所副所长刘晓文 ...[详细]
-
People wait to receive COVID-19 tests at a makeshift clinic in central Seoul on Monday. (Yonhap)Sout ...[详细]
A global problem is preventing the wars in Ukraine and Gaza from coming to an end.
Four NWSL coaches banned for life
- US Open 2024 livestream: How to watch US Open tennis for free
- Twitter may charge users $20 per month to be verified
- 昔日“大杂院” 今日换新颜
- Supreme Court term: Progressive wins hide pernicious rightward creep.
- Coach jailed for sexual exploitation of underage athlete
- Uber One subscription gets you discounts on Uber rides, Eats
- Which iPhones are 5G?