Audit Selection Report for ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DIST BALLOT ISSUE 4C

Proportion of the total number of votes for this contest that were cast within this county: 2.0%

See additional statistical information below...

The audit units are reported for selection in priority order, based on the threshholds below, and the "Sum of Square Roots" pseudorandom number generator using the random seed value 123456789012345 combined with the Batch sequence numbers.

Select the top 0 audit units.

Batch Seq Threshhold Random Priority Type Batches Ballots Contest Ballots NO Over Under YES
Totals 35 0 8 41
000296 0.232070 0.067170 3.454968 AB p328_mb_302 None 2 0 0 2 0
000099 0.123684 0.052834 2.341003 AB p132_mb_102 None 1 1 0 0 0
000113 0.907125 0.428152 2.118699 ED p138_ed_117 None 18 12 0 2 4
000066 0.232070 0.113187 2.050326 EV p100_ev_069 None 2 2 0 0 0
000181 0.123684 0.069742 1.773450 AB p211_mb_186 None 1 0 0 0 1
000262 0.232070 0.146590 1.583124 ED p288_ed_251 None 2 0 0 0 2
000221 0.123684 0.079830 1.549340 AB p270_mb_226 None 1 1 0 0 0
000222 0.123684 0.084342 1.466461 AB p264_mb_227 None 1 0 0 0 1
000029 0.327050 0.224555 1.456435 EV p039_ev_031 None 3 0 0 0 3
000284 0.123684 0.093249 1.326376 AB p313_mb_290 None 1 1 0 0 0
000054 0.123684 0.109863 1.125794 AB p070_mb_057 None 1 0 0 0 1
000055 0.327050 0.503519 0.649529 AB p033_mb_058 None 3 0 0 1 2
000318 0.547138 0.881054 0.621004 AB p364_mb_324 None 6 3 0 0 3
000317 0.123684 0.213428 0.579508 AB p365_mb_323 None 1 0 0 0 1
000174 0.232070 0.414090 0.560432 AB p229_mb_179 None 2 0 0 0 2
000233 0.327050 0.673857 0.485340 AB p275_mb_238 None 3 2 0 0 1
000213 0.123684 0.265241 0.466306 AB p256_mb_218 None 1 0 0 0 1
000080 0.123684 0.273743 0.451824 AB p124_mb_083 None 1 0 0 0 1
000285 0.123684 0.281296 0.439691 AB p314_mb_291 None 1 0 0 0 1
000079 0.232070 0.554235 0.418720 AB p123_mb_082 None 2 1 0 0 1
000197 0.123684 0.315419 0.392125 EV p236_ev_202 None 1 0 0 1 0
000311 0.123684 0.325095 0.380453 AB p368_mb_317 None 1 0 0 0 1
000223 0.123684 0.328635 0.376355 AB p242_mb_228 None 1 0 0 0 1
000105 0.232070 0.634666 0.365656 AB p169_mb_108 None 2 2 0 0 0
000011 0.123684 0.342827 0.360776 AB p096_mb_013 None 1 1 0 0 0
000005 0.123684 0.447939 0.276117 AB p088_mb_006 None 1 1 0 0 0
000128 0.232070 0.856648 0.270904 AB p151_mb_129 None 2 0 0 0 2
000151 0.232070 0.901413 0.257451 AB p171_mb_155 None 2 1 0 0 1
000123 0.123684 0.491546 0.251622 AB p147_mb_126 None 1 1 0 0 0
000075 0.123684 0.530890 0.232974 AB p107_ev_078 None 1 0 0 0 1
000027 0.123684 0.585003 0.211424 EV p053_ev_027 None 1 0 0 1 0
000265 0.123684 0.618629 0.199932 AB p281_mb_271 None 1 1 0 0 0
000033 0.123684 0.650041 0.190270 AB p044_mb_035 None 1 1 0 0 0
000239 0.123684 0.653830 0.189168 AB p299_mb_244 None 1 1 0 0 0
000150 0.123684 0.678580 0.182268 AB p172_mb_154 None 1 0 0 0 1
000155 0.123684 0.690245 0.179188 AB p177_mb_159 None 1 0 0 0 1
000012 0.123684 0.730544 0.169303 AB p097_mb_014 None 1 0 0 0 1
000035 0.123684 0.790280 0.156506 AB p046_mb_037 None 1 1 0 0 0
000069 0.123684 0.799039 0.154790 EV p103_ev_072 None 1 0 0 1 0
000009 0.123684 0.832676 0.148538 AB p094_mb_011 None 1 0 0 0 1
000160 0.123684 0.860238 0.143778 AB p223_mb_164 None 1 0 0 0 1
000018 0.123684 0.898786 0.137612 AB p076_mb_020 None 1 0 0 0 1
000281 0.123684 0.906831 0.136391 EV p292_ev_282 None 1 0 0 0 1
000112 0.123684 0.917271 0.134839 AB p143_mb_115 None 1 1 0 0 0
000064 0.123684 0.925999 0.133568 EV p112_ev_067 None 1 0 0 0 1
000140 0.123684 0.935750 0.132176 AB p167_mb_139 None 1 1 0 0 0
000008 0.123684 0.966987 0.127906 AB p092_mb_010 None 1 0 0 0 1
000208 0.123684 0.990803 0.124832 AB p247_mb_212 None 1 0 0 0 1

Audit statistics

The "Number of audit units to audit" is based on the NEGEXP method, which is very efficient and requires selecting larger audit units with higher probability than smaller ones. The numbers given here are based on a confidence level of 75%. I.e. they are designed so the audit will either 1) find a discrepancy and call for an escalation or full hand recount, or 2) reduce the risk of confirming an incorrect outcome to (100 - 75)%, even if the tally system has been manipulated. A maximum "within-precinct-miscount" of 20% is assumed. See On Auditing Elections When Precincts Have Different Sizes, by Javed A. Aslam, Raluca A. Popa and Ronald L. Rivest


Contest: ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DIST BALLOT ISSUE 4C

Number of precincts: 48
Total number of votes cast:  84
Average number of votes/precinct: 1.75
Median number of votes/precinct: 1
Maximum number of votes/precinct: 18
Minimum number of votes/precinct: 1
Ratio of max/min: 18.0
margin =  5.0 percent, 4.2 votes
s =  0.2  (maximum within-precinct-miscount)
alpha =  0.25  (confidence is 1 - alpha:  0.75 )

Rule of Thumb says:
    11.090354889 precincts.
    expected workload =  35.0 votes counted.

APR says:
    b = 6.0 precincts needed to hold corruption
    u =  10 precincts to audit
    expected workload =  17.5 votes
    confidence level to find one of b =  0.775033345524
    bmin = 1
    confidence level to find one of bmin =  0.208333333333

SAFE says:
    bmin = 1
    Number of precincts to audit = u = 36
    Confidence level achieved =  0.75
    expected workload =  63.0

Negexp says:
    w = 3.02965958587
    largest probability =  0.907125356929
    smallest probability =  0.123683572264
    expected number of precincts audited =  8.62089441291
    expected workload =  30.59657189 votes counted

PPEBWR says:
    t =  11
    largest total probability =  0.929545109498
    smallest total probability =  0.123429462484
    expected number of precincts audited = 8.65894940234
    expected workload =  31.0894928664 votes counted.
    max difference from negexp =  0.0224197525687