Search for: All records

Abstract ONEAudit provides more efficient risk-limiting audits than other extant methods when the voting system cannot report a cast-vote record linked to each cast card. It obviates the need for re-scanning; it is simpler and more efficient than ‘hybrid’ audits; and it is far more efficient than batch-level comparison audits. There may be room to improve the efficiency of ONEAudit further by tuning the statistical tests it uses and by using stratified sampling. We show that tuning the tests by optimizing for the reported batch-level tallies or integrating over a distribution reduces expected workloads by 70–85% compared to the current ONEAudit implementation across a range of simulated elections. The improved tests reduce the expected workload to audit the 2024 Mayoral race in San Francisco, California, by half—from about 200 cards to about 100 cards. In contrast, stratified sampling does not help: it increases workloads by about 25% on average. 

U.S. elections rely heavily on computers such as voter registration databases, electronic pollbooks, voting machines, scanners, tabulators, and results reporting websites. These introduce digital threats to election outcomes. Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) mitigate threats to some of these systems by manually inspecting random samples of ballot cards. RLAs have a large chance of correcting wrong outcomes (by conducting a full manual tabulation of a trustworthy record of the votes), but can save labor when reported outcomes are correct. This efficiency is eroded when sampling cannot be targeted to ballot cards that contain the contest(s) under audit. If the sample is drawn from all cast cards, then RLA sample sizes scale like the reciprocal of the fraction of ballot cards that contain the contest(s) under audit. That fraction shrinks as the number of cards per ballot grows (i.e., when elections contain more contests) and as the fraction of ballots that contain the contest decreases (i.e., when a smaller percentage of voters are eligible to vote in the contest). States that conduct RLAs of contests on multi-card ballots or RLAs of small contests can dramatically reduce sample sizes by using information about which ballot cards contain which contests—by keeping track of card-style data (CSD). For instance, CSD reduce the expected number of draws needed to audit a single countywide contest on a 4-card ballot by 75%. Similarly, CSD reduce the expected number of draws by 95% or more for an audit of two contests with the same margin on a 4-card ballot if one contest is on every ballot and the other is on 10% of ballots. In realistic examples, the savings can be several orders of magnitude.