2016 Postmortem

red dog 1

(29,741 posts)

5. "An audit that manually examines a random sample of the ballots

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 05:16 PM

Nov 2016

in a way that has a large chance of detecting and correcting incorrect results.
This is called a 'risk-limiting' audit.
If the reported winner of a contest really won, a risk-limiting audit generally needs to examine only a small fraction of the ballots.
But if the reported winner actually lost, a risk-limiting audit has a large chance of indicating that a full hand count is needed to set the record straight."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028290706

(From: USA Today: Still Time for an Election Audit)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Amid calls for recount, election experts ask: Why not audit the vote? [View all] think Nov 2016 OP

is hope still audacious? billymike Nov 2016 #1

Helen Keller once said: red dog 1 Nov 2016 #4

oh God Billy Mike jodymarie aimee Nov 2016 #2

all women billymike Nov 2016 #3

I have the same feeling diane in sf Nov 2016 #6

my 80 y/o mom, says the same thing. nt PunkinPi Nov 2016 #12

"An audit that manually examines a random sample of the ballots red dog 1 Nov 2016 #5

Good idea! ananda Nov 2016 #7

The corporate media decides who wins on another thrilling episode of.... Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2016 #8

keep in mind, many of the PTB *don't want* the machines audited. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #9

i hope there's a growing groundswell for auditing the vote... come on people! liberalla Nov 2016 #10

Yes! Madam45for2923 Nov 2016 #11

Auditing the voting machines? astral Nov 2016 #13