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

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 40 0 8 36
000296 0.171892 0.067170 2.559064 AB p328_mb_302 None 2 0 0 2 0
000113 0.816860 0.428152 1.907873 ED p138_ed_117 None 18 12 0 2 4
000099 0.089996 0.052834 1.703377 AB p132_mb_102 None 1 1 0 0 0
000066 0.171892 0.113187 1.518658 EV p100_ev_069 None 2 2 0 0 0
000181 0.089996 0.069742 1.290410 AB p211_mb_186 None 1 0 0 0 1
000262 0.171892 0.146590 1.172606 ED p288_ed_251 None 2 0 0 0 2
000221 0.089996 0.079830 1.127342 AB p270_mb_226 None 1 1 0 0 0
000029 0.246418 0.224555 1.097360 EV p039_ev_031 None 3 1 0 0 2
000222 0.089996 0.084342 1.067037 AB p264_mb_227 None 1 0 0 0 1
000284 0.089996 0.093249 0.965107 AB p313_mb_290 None 1 1 0 0 0
000054 0.089996 0.109863 0.819158 AB p070_mb_057 None 1 1 0 0 0
000318 0.432114 0.881054 0.490451 AB p364_mb_324 None 6 3 0 0 3
000055 0.246418 0.503519 0.489392 AB p033_mb_058 None 3 0 0 1 2
000317 0.089996 0.213428 0.421666 AB p365_mb_323 None 1 0 0 0 1
000174 0.171892 0.414090 0.415107 AB p229_mb_179 None 2 0 0 0 2
000233 0.246418 0.673857 0.365683 AB p275_mb_238 None 3 2 0 0 1
000213 0.089996 0.265241 0.339297 AB p256_mb_218 None 1 0 0 0 1
000080 0.089996 0.273743 0.328759 AB p124_mb_083 None 1 0 0 0 1
000285 0.089996 0.281296 0.319931 AB p314_mb_291 None 1 0 0 0 1
000079 0.171892 0.554235 0.310142 AB p123_mb_082 None 2 2 0 0 0
000197 0.089996 0.315419 0.285321 EV p236_ev_202 None 1 0 0 1 0
000311 0.089996 0.325095 0.276828 AB p368_mb_317 None 1 0 0 0 1
000223 0.089996 0.328635 0.273846 AB p242_mb_228 None 1 0 0 0 1
000105 0.171892 0.634666 0.270838 AB p169_mb_108 None 2 2 0 0 0
000011 0.089996 0.342827 0.262510 AB p096_mb_013 None 1 1 0 0 0
000005 0.089996 0.447939 0.200910 AB p088_mb_006 None 1 1 0 0 0
000128 0.171892 0.856648 0.200656 AB p151_mb_129 None 2 0 0 0 2
000151 0.171892 0.901413 0.190692 AB p171_mb_155 None 2 2 0 0 0
000123 0.089996 0.491546 0.183087 AB p147_mb_126 None 1 1 0 0 0
000075 0.089996 0.530890 0.169518 AB p107_ev_078 None 1 1 0 0 0
000027 0.089996 0.585003 0.153838 EV p053_ev_027 None 1 0 0 1 0
000265 0.089996 0.618629 0.145476 AB p281_mb_271 None 1 1 0 0 0
000033 0.089996 0.650041 0.138446 AB p044_mb_035 None 1 1 0 0 0
000239 0.089996 0.653830 0.137644 AB p299_mb_244 None 1 1 0 0 0
000150 0.089996 0.678580 0.132623 AB p172_mb_154 None 1 0 0 0 1
000155 0.089996 0.690245 0.130382 AB p177_mb_159 None 1 0 0 0 1
000012 0.089996 0.730544 0.123190 AB p097_mb_014 None 1 0 0 0 1
000035 0.089996 0.790280 0.113878 AB p046_mb_037 None 1 1 0 0 0
000069 0.089996 0.799039 0.112630 EV p103_ev_072 None 1 0 0 1 0
000009 0.089996 0.832676 0.108080 AB p094_mb_011 None 1 0 0 0 1
000160 0.089996 0.860238 0.104617 AB p223_mb_164 None 1 0 0 0 1
000018 0.089996 0.898786 0.100130 AB p076_mb_020 None 1 0 0 0 1
000281 0.089996 0.906831 0.099242 EV p292_ev_282 None 1 0 0 0 1
000112 0.089996 0.917271 0.098112 AB p143_mb_115 None 1 1 0 0 0
000064 0.089996 0.925999 0.097188 EV p112_ev_067 None 1 0 0 0 1
000140 0.089996 0.935750 0.096175 AB p167_mb_139 None 1 1 0 0 0
000008 0.089996 0.966987 0.093068 AB p092_mb_010 None 1 0 0 0 1
000208 0.089996 0.990803 0.090831 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 4D

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 =  7.0 percent, 5.88 votes
s =  0.2  (maximum within-precinct-miscount)
alpha =  0.25  (confidence is 1 - alpha:  0.75 )

Rule of Thumb says:
    7.92168206354 precincts.
    expected workload =  26.25 votes counted.

APR says:
    b = 8.4 precincts needed to hold corruption
    u =  7 precincts to audit
    expected workload =  12.25 votes
    confidence level to find one of b =  0.765395179292
    bmin = 1
    confidence level to find one of bmin =  0.145833333333

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

Negexp says:
    w = 4.24152342021
    largest probability =  0.816859800016
    smallest probability =  0.0899955040251
    expected number of precincts audited =  6.51320438508
    expected workload =  25.4140320771 votes counted

PPEBWR says:
    t =  8
    largest total probability =  0.854749647229
    smallest total probability =  0.0913629308324
    expected number of precincts audited = 6.65972681754
    expected workload =  26.3440980642 votes counted.
    max difference from negexp =  0.0378898472126