Skip to main content

Overstatement-Net-Equivalent Risk-Limiting Audit: ONEAudit

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2023 International Workshops (FC 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13953))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A procedure is a risk-limiting audit (RLA) with risk limit \(\alpha \) if it has probability at least \(1-\alpha \) of correcting each wrong reported outcome and never alters correct outcomes. One efficient RLA method, card-level comparison (CLCA), compares human interpretation of individual ballot cards randomly selected from a trustworthy paper trail to the voting system’s interpretation of the same cards (cast vote records, CVRs). CLCAs heretofore required a CVR for each cast card and a “link” identifying which CVR is for which card—which many voting systems cannot provide. This paper shows that every set of CVRs that produces the same aggregate results overstates contest margins by the same amount: they are overstatement-net-equivalent (ONE). CLCA can therefore use CVRs from the voting system for any number of cards and ONE CVRs created ad lib for the rest. In particular:

  • Ballot-polling RLA is algebraically equivalent to CLCA using ONE CVRs derived from the overall contest results.

  • CLCA can be based on batch-level results (e.g., precinct subtotals) by constructing ONE CVRs for each batch. In contrast to batch-level comparison auditing (BLCA), this avoids manually tabulating entire batches and works even when reporting batches do not correspond to physically identifiable batches of cards, when BLCA is impractical.

  • If the voting system can export linked CVRs for only some ballot cards, auditors can still use CLCA by constructing ONE CVRs for the rest of the cards from contest results or batch subtotals.

This works for every social choice function for which there is a known RLA method, including IRV. Sample sizes for BPA and CLCA using ONE CVRs based on contest totals are comparable. With ONE CVRs from batch subtotals, sample sizes are smaller than for BPA when batches are homogeneous, approaching those of CLCA using CVRs from the voting system, and much smaller than for BLCA: A CLCA of the 2022 presidential election in California at risk limit 5% using ONE CVRs for precinct-level results would sample approximately 70 ballots statewide, if the reported results are accurate, compared to about 26,700 for BLCA. The 2022 Georgia audit tabulated more than 231,000 cards (the expected BLCA sample size was \(\approx \)103,000 cards); ONEAudit would have audited \(\approx \)1,300 cards. For data from a pilot hybrid RLA in Kalamazoo, MI, in 2018, ONEAudit gives a risk of 2%, substantially lower than the 3.7% measured risk for SUITE, the “hybrid” method the pilot used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://sos.ga.gov/news/georgias-2022-statewide-risk-limiting-audit-confirms-results, last visited 26 February 2023.

  2. 2.

    https://www.stat/berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/cgg-rept-10.pdf, last visited 15 December 2022.

  3. 3.

    See https://github.com/kellieotto/mirla18/blob/master/code/kalamazoo_SUITE.ipynb.

References

  1. Appel, A.: Sort the mail-in ballot envelopes, or don’t? (2023). https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2023/05/01/sort-the-mail-in-ballot-envelopes-or-dont/. Accessed 16 June 2023

  2. Appel, A., Stark, P.: Evidence-based elections: create a meaningful paper trail, then audit. Georgetown Law Technol. Rev. 4(2), 523–541 (2020). https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/4.2-p523-541-Appel-Stark.pdf

  3. Bañuelos, J., Stark, P.: Limiting risk by turning manifest phantoms into evil zombies. Technical report (2012). https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3413. Accessed 17 July 2012

  4. Blom, M., Stuckey, P.J., Teague, V.J.: Ballot-polling risk limiting audits for IRV elections. In: Krimmer, R., et al. (eds.) E-Vote-ID 2018. LNCS, vol. 11143, pp. 17–34. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00419-4_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Harrison, A., Fuller, B., Russell, A.: Lazy risk-limiting ballot comparison audits (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.02607

  6. Higgins, M., Rivest, R., Stark, P.: Sharper p-values for stratified post-election audits. Stat. Politics Policy 2(1) (2011). https://doi.org/10.2202/2151-7509.1031

  7. Lindeman, M., McBurnett, N., Ottoboni, K., Stark, P.: Next steps for the Colorado risk-limiting audit (CORLA) program (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.00698

  8. Lindeman, M., Stark, P.: A gentle introduction to risk-limiting audits. IEEE Secur. Priv. 10, 42–49 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindeman, M., Stark, P., Yates, V.: BRAVO: ballot-polling risk-limiting audits to verify outcomes. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 2011). USENIX (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ottoboni, K., Stark, P.B., Lindeman, M., McBurnett, N.: Risk-limiting audits by stratified union-intersection tests of elections (SUITE). In: Krimmer, R., et al. (eds.) E-Vote-ID 2018. LNCS, vol. 11143, pp. 174–188. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00419-4_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Ottoboni, K., Bernhard, M., Halderman, J.A., Rivest, R.L., Stark, P.B.: Bernoulli ballot polling: a manifest improvement for risk-limiting audits. In: Bracciali, A., Clark, J., Pintore, F., Rønne, P.B., Sala, M. (eds.) FC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11599, pp. 226–241. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43725-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Rhode Island RLA Working Group: Pilot implementation study of risk-limiting audit methods in the state of Rhode Island (2019). https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Report-RI-Design-FINAL-WEB4.pdf

  13. Spertus, J.V., Stark, P.B.: Sweeter than SUITE: supermartingale stratified union-intersection tests of elections. In: Krimmer, R., Volkamer, M., Duenas-Cid, D., Ronne, P., Germann, M. (eds.) E-Vote-ID 2022. LNCS, vol. 13553, pp. 106–121. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15911-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Sridhar, M., Rivest, R.L.: k-cut: a simple approximately-uniform method for sampling ballots in post-election audits. In: Bracciali, A., Clark, J., Pintore, F., Rønne, P.B., Sala, M. (eds.) FC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11599, pp. 242–256. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43725-1_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Stark, P.: Election audits by sampling with probability proportional to an error bound: dealing with discrepancies (2008). https://statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/ppebwrwd08.pdf

  16. Stark, P.: A sharper discrepancy measure for post-election audits. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2, 982–985 (2008). https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.1697

  17. Stark, P.: Super-simple simultaneous single-ballot risk-limiting audits. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop / Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 2010). USENIX (2010). https://www.usenix.org/events/evtwote10/tech/full_papers/Stark.pdf

  18. Stark, P.B.: Sets of half-average nulls generate risk-limiting audits: SHANGRLA. In: Bernhard, M., et al. (eds.) FC 2020. LNCS, vol. 12063, pp. 319–336. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54455-3_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Stark, P.: Non(c)esuch ballot-level risk-limiting audits for precinct-count voting systems. In: Katsikas, S., et al. (eds.) ESORICS 2022. LNCS, vol. 13785, pp. 541–554. Springer, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25460-4_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Stark, P.B.: Conservative statistical post-election audits. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2, 550–581 (2008). https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4005

  21. Stark, P.B.: Risk-limiting post-election audits: \(P\)-values from common probability inequalities. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 4, 1005–1014 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stark, P.B.: ALPHA: audit that learns from previously hand-audited ballots. Ann. Appl. Stat. 17, 641–679 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1214/22-AOAS1646

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NSF Grant SaTC–2228884. I am grateful to Jake Spertus and Andrew Appel for helpful conversations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip B. Stark .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 International Financial Cryptography Association

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Stark, P.B. (2024). Overstatement-Net-Equivalent Risk-Limiting Audit: ONEAudit. In: Essex, A., et al. Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2023 International Workshops. FC 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13953. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48806-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48806-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-48805-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-48806-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics