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 702758241994347 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
000113 0.907125 0.024408 37.165004 ED p138_ed_117 None 18 12 0 2 4
000317 0.123684 0.027060 4.570769 AB p365_mb_323 None 1 0 0 0 1
000284 0.123684 0.031714 3.899931 AB p313_mb_290 None 1 1 0 0 0
000011 0.123684 0.043257 2.859271 AB p096_mb_013 None 1 1 0 0 0
000296 0.232070 0.100043 2.319689 AB p328_mb_302 None 2 0 0 2 0
000035 0.123684 0.057732 2.142368 AB p046_mb_037 None 1 1 0 0 0
000105 0.232070 0.138734 1.672765 AB p169_mb_108 None 2 2 0 0 0
000281 0.123684 0.102395 1.207901 EV p292_ev_282 None 1 0 0 0 1
000239 0.123684 0.111660 1.107681 AB p299_mb_244 None 1 1 0 0 0
000005 0.123684 0.120455 1.026799 AB p088_mb_006 None 1 1 0 0 0
000285 0.123684 0.137082 0.902257 AB p314_mb_291 None 1 0 0 0 1
000055 0.327050 0.418615 0.781266 AB p033_mb_058 None 3 0 0 1 2
000151 0.232070 0.310707 0.746908 AB p171_mb_155 None 2 1 0 0 1
000054 0.123684 0.183764 0.673056 AB p070_mb_057 None 1 0 0 0 1
000318 0.547138 0.847468 0.645615 AB p364_mb_324 None 6 3 0 0 3
000262 0.232070 0.379132 0.612108 ED p288_ed_251 None 2 0 0 0 2
000208 0.123684 0.224622 0.550630 AB p247_mb_212 None 1 0 0 0 1
000029 0.327050 0.599575 0.545469 EV p039_ev_031 None 3 0 0 0 3
000222 0.123684 0.235613 0.524944 AB p264_mb_227 None 1 0 0 0 1
000080 0.123684 0.238008 0.519662 AB p124_mb_083 None 1 0 0 0 1
000128 0.232070 0.477745 0.485760 AB p151_mb_129 None 2 0 0 0 2
000150 0.123684 0.265712 0.465480 AB p172_mb_154 None 1 0 0 0 1
000066 0.232070 0.525036 0.442007 EV p100_ev_069 None 2 2 0 0 0
000079 0.232070 0.609047 0.381037 AB p123_mb_082 None 2 1 0 0 1
000233 0.327050 0.900779 0.363075 AB p275_mb_238 None 3 2 0 0 1
000213 0.123684 0.350121 0.353259 AB p256_mb_218 None 1 0 0 0 1
000009 0.123684 0.350912 0.352463 AB p094_mb_011 None 1 0 0 0 1
000311 0.123684 0.356518 0.346921 AB p368_mb_317 None 1 0 0 0 1
000174 0.232070 0.780197 0.297450 AB p229_mb_179 None 2 0 0 0 2
000155 0.123684 0.436894 0.283098 AB p177_mb_159 None 1 0 0 0 1
000265 0.123684 0.471476 0.262333 AB p281_mb_271 None 1 1 0 0 0
000018 0.123684 0.534207 0.231528 AB p076_mb_020 None 1 0 0 0 1
000033 0.123684 0.556787 0.222138 AB p044_mb_035 None 1 1 0 0 0
000099 0.123684 0.565134 0.218857 AB p132_mb_102 None 1 1 0 0 0
000123 0.123684 0.567461 0.217960 AB p147_mb_126 None 1 1 0 0 0
000064 0.123684 0.582289 0.212409 EV p112_ev_067 None 1 0 0 0 1
000140 0.123684 0.648979 0.190582 AB p167_mb_139 None 1 1 0 0 0
000181 0.123684 0.776682 0.159246 AB p211_mb_186 None 1 0 0 0 1
000197 0.123684 0.791842 0.156197 EV p236_ev_202 None 1 0 0 1 0
000027 0.123684 0.811460 0.152421 EV p053_ev_027 None 1 0 0 1 0
000221 0.123684 0.858255 0.144110 AB p270_mb_226 None 1 1 0 0 0
000069 0.123684 0.864196 0.143120 EV p103_ev_072 None 1 0 0 1 0
000160 0.123684 0.872822 0.141705 AB p223_mb_164 None 1 0 0 0 1
000012 0.123684 0.875137 0.141330 AB p097_mb_014 None 1 0 0 0 1
000008 0.123684 0.880630 0.140449 AB p092_mb_010 None 1 0 0 0 1
000223 0.123684 0.893175 0.138476 AB p242_mb_228 None 1 0 0 0 1
000112 0.123684 0.893416 0.138439 AB p143_mb_115 None 1 1 0 0 0
000075 0.123684 0.965698 0.128077 AB p107_ev_078 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