The Arizona Election Audit: Challenges and Transparency
The recent Arizona election audit has drawn significant attention and criticism, particularly regarding its length and perceived lack of transparency. Here, we delve into the reasons behind these issues, the comprehensiveness of the audit, and the findings from the relevant reports.
Why is the Arizona Audit Taking So Long?
The extended duration of the Arizona audit can be attributed to several factors. One major reason is that the audit team consists of individuals who lack the necessary expertise and competence. This point is supported by the analogy of 'building a boat without a rudder,' indicating that the process is flawed and potentially useless.
The funding for the audit by right-wing media outlets further complicates the situation. These media entities seem to have a financial stake in prolonging the ongoing audit to maximize their exposure and impact. By keeping the audit process 'running,' they can maintain public interest and scrutiny, which may benefit their operations.
Transparency Issues
The lack of transparency in the audit process is another critical issue. This can be attributed to a combination of factors, including the inexperience of the auditors and the complexity of the task at hand. Without proper oversight and transparency, it becomes challenging to ensure that the audit is conducted fairly and accurately. Previous attempts to audit elections, such as the Maricopa County hand count, were limited in scope, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the overall election outcome.
Comprehensive Audit Details
The current audit has a more extensive scope, including a full hand count of 2.1 million ballots cast in the election. This is significantly more detailed compared to previous audits, such as the Maricopa County hand count, which only sampled 8,082 presidential ballots. Of these, 5,165 were mail-in ballots, with 3,890 votes for Biden and 3,986 for Trump. Although the small sample size lacks statistical significance, it does provide a snapshot of the election's tight margin.
The audit also includes a review of the hardware and software used in the election. According to the reports from SLI Compliance and Pro VV, 100 central count tabulators, 100 workstations, and 2 servers were audited as part of the election management system. Additionally, 35 sample precinct-based tabulators and 4 of the 20 adjudication stations were examined for potential issues such as over-votes, blank ballots, write-ins, and marginal marks.
Both companies noted that the systems examined showed no malicious USB devices being connected. However, they highlighted that the systems did not provide a physical or digital method to prevent unauthorized USB devices from accessing the systems. While SLI took 5 days to complete the audit, Pro VV managed to complete it in just 3 days. Routers were not mentioned in the reports, suggesting they were not part of the audit.
Conclusion
While the comprehensive nature of the current audit in Arizona is commendable, there are still challenges in ensuring its transparency and genuine effectiveness. The expertise and funding of the audit play crucial roles in its success, and ongoing scrutiny is necessary to maintain public trust in the electoral process.