Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Risk-limiting Audits and the Margin of Victory in Nonplurality Elections

Bibliographic Data

ID13036680
AuthorsAnand D Sarwate (0000-0001-6123-5282, Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago, corresponding author), Stephen Checkoway (Johns Hopkins University), Hovav Shacham (University of California San Diego)
Year2013
Volume4
Issue1
Publication date2013-01-11
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueStatistics Politics and Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2151-7509 • E-ISSN: 2194-6299
PublisherDe Gruyter (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/spp-2012-0003
OpenAlexW59785752
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited32

Post-election audits are an important method for verifying the outcome of an election. Recent work on risk-limiting, post-election audits has focused almost exclusively on plurality elections. Several organization and municipalities use nonplurality methods such as range voting, the Borda count, and instant-runoff voting (IRV). We believe that it is crucial to develop effective methods of performing risk-limiting, post-election audits for these methods. We define a general notion of the margin of victory and develop risk-limiting auditing procedures for these nonplurality methods. For scored systems, we show how to adapt methods from plurality auditing. For IRV, the situation is markedly different. We provide a risk-limiting method for auditing the candidate elimination order. We provide a more efficient audit for the elections in which the margin of the IRV election can be efficiently calculated or bounded. We provide efficiently computable upper and lower bounds on the margin and, where possible, compare them to the exact margins for a large number of real elections

Audit · Business · Computer security · Electronic voting · Limiting · Margin (machine learning · Political science · Politics · Victory · Voting · Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs · Computer Science · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Engineering · Game Theory and Voting Systems · Law · Accounting

  • The failure of Instant Runoff to accomplish the purpose for which it was adopted

    Open Access•Robert Bristow-Johnson•Constitutional Political Economy•2023

  • The case for approval voting

    Open Access•Aaron Hamlin, Whitney Hua•Constitutional Political Economy•2022

  • Condorcet Social Choice Functions

    Peter C Fishburn•SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics•1977

  • Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions

    Open Access•Mark Allen Satterthwaite•Journal of Economic Theory•1975

  • Manipulation of Voting Schemes

    Allan Gibbard•Econometrica•1973

  • Social Choice and Individual Values

    Kenneth J Arrow, Eric S Maskin•Social Choice and Individual Values•2017

  • The Theory of Committees and Elections

    Open Access•Duncan Black, Georg Kunze•Theory of Committees and Elections•1986

  • Sharper p-Values for Stratified Election Audits

    Michael Higgins, Ronald L Rivest et al.•Statistics Politics and Policy•2011

  • Social Choice in the South Seas

    Open Access•Benjamin Reilly•International Political Science…•2002

  • Single Transferrable Vote

    Gideon Doron, Richard Kronick•American Journal of Political…•1977

  • The Single Transferable Vote

    Open Access•Nicolaus Tideman•The Journal of Economic…•1995

Unique citing works2
Citations per year0,5
Citation span2022 - 2023 (2)
Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 2

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae