Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Risk Limiting Audits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Risk‑limiting and tabulation audits: what the Election Assistance Commission training emphasizes
Summary
The Election Assistance Commission training explains post‑election tabulation audits and risk‑limiting audits (RLAs), noting RLAs test whether the reported winner actually won and that procedures rely on representative sampling, detailed records and secure chain of custody.
A presenter in the Election Assistance Commission training walked through post‑election audit procedures and highlighted risk‑limiting audits (RLAs) as a tool to confirm the accuracy of reported winners. The presenter said tabulation audits typically involve hand‑counting a sample of ballots selected by precinct, location or device and comparing those counts to reported totals to detect discrepancies.
Risk‑limiting audits, the training explained, are designed to test whether the reported winner of a contest truly won; the sample size for an RLA depends on contest‑specific factors such as the margin between the top candidates and other variables affecting statistical confidence. The presenter noted that RLAs differ from broader recounts because they use sampling and statistical thresholds to limit the risk of certifying an incorrect outcome.
The presenter also stressed that all post‑election audits rely on complete records and secure chains of custody for ballots and audit materials; without reliable records, audit results cannot be verified. Procedural (compliance) audits were described as reviews of documentation — L&A materials, chain‑of‑custody logs, reconciliation reports and election certification records — that confirm whether established processes were followed.
The training advised election officials to consult state rules about who conducts audits, when they must occur, and which methodologies are required. The presenter emphasized that while both traditional post‑election audits and RLAs can demonstrate the trustworthiness of results, jurisdictions should follow the methods and thresholds specified by their state laws or regulations.
The training segment concluded by reiterating that RLAs and tabulation audits are complementary approaches that, when properly implemented with secure records and representative sampling, can provide robust checks on reported election results.
