Latest Research from the VTP

Who Should Run Elections in the United States?

Author(s): 
Morgan Llewellyn
Caltech
Thad E. Hall
Journal: 
Policy Studies Journal
pp: 
325-346
Link to Article: 
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Much has been said since the 2000 presidential election regarding the administration of elections in the United States, particularly about how election administrators are selected and to whom they are responsive. Unfortunately, there has been little research on the different administrative structures that are possible and the preferences of Americans regarding these different administrative options.

Election Fraud References

Working Paper No.: 
50
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Sarah Hill
No abstract available (content is a list of sources).

The New Mexico Election Administration Report: The 2006 November General Election

Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
R. Michael Alvarez
Lonna Rae Atkeson
Thad E. Hall
The New Mexico Election Administration Report on the 2006 November General Election is the product of three independent research projects focused on New Mexico’s election administration efforts in the 2006 election. New Mexico has recently implemented a number of significant election reforms intended to create fair, accurate and voter-verifiable election administration systems.

Russian Elections: An Oxymoron of Democracy

Working Paper No.: 
63
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Misha Myagkov
Peter Ordeshook
Considerable controversy swirls around the extent to which Russia’s elections have been falsified. We argue here on the basis of an assessment of aberrant distributions of turnout in official election returns for each or Russia’s national elections beginning in 1995, that falsifications in the form of stuffed ballot boxes and artificially augmented election counts, whose significance was first apparent in its ethnic republics, has now spread to and metastasized within both rural and urban oblast districts.

On Auditing Elections When Precincts Have Different Sizes

Working Paper No.: 
55
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Ronald L. Rivest
We address the problem of auditing an election when precincts may have different sizes, and suggest methods for picking a sample of precincts to audit that takes precinct size into account. one method yields optimal auditing strategies together with an exact measure of its effectiveness (probability of detecting corruption of a given size).

On Estimating the Size and Confidence of a Statistical Audit

Working Paper No.: 
54
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Javed A. Aslam
Ronald L. Rivest
We consider the problem of statistical sampling for auditing elections, and we develop a remarkably simple and easily-calculated upper bound for the sample size necessary for determining with probability at least c whether a given set of n objects contains b or more “bad” objects. While the size of the optimal sample drawn without replacement can be determined with a computer program, our goal is to derive a highly accurate and simple formula that can be used by election officials equipped with only a simple calculator.

Measuring the Improvement (Or Lack of Improvement) In Voting Since 2000 in the U.S.

Working Paper No.: 
36
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III
This paper summarizes what systematic evidence exists about the performance of the American voting process in 2004 and proposes a comprehensive system of performance measures that would allow citizens and officials to assess the quality of the voting system in the U.S.

Statement on Verifying the Vote and Auditing Elections

Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Voting Technology Project
No abstract available.

Processes Can Improve Electronic Voting: A Case Study of An Election

Working Paper No.: 
19
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Ted Selker
Across the United States, I have personally watched hundreds of precincts vote since 2001. Most recently, I traveled to Reno/Sparks, Nevada to observe the rollout of the Sequoia Direct record electronic voting systems with verifiable paper trail printers on September 7, 2004. This experience was also enriched by the members of the Secretary of State of California’s poll-watching effort, who invited me to join them to watch the election progress at eleven different polling places, which together represent almost forty different precincts.

Pages