Should only close races be audited, investigated- when big glitches/problems occur in a race

[philb]

The Florida attorney Gen. race was expected to be close, I thought the Dem would surely win.

But the margin was something like 53/47 for the Repub.

The At. Gen race had more undervotes and higher concentration of UVs than the Cong. Dist 13 race in Sarasota-
yet apparently no one is paying attention to or looking into the apparent large glitch/problems in this race.
All the high undervotes were on ES&S touch screens, with low UVs on all opti-scans and other touch screens.

Is it the process thats important or the result? Is closeness of the result the deciding factor in which glitches/hacks get attention?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x457990

[tech3149]

1. without consideration of the method or technology

audits should be mandatory for a small percentage of precincts that are randomly selected. If audits are only required when resulsts are close, it opens the window for more aggressive manipulation to avoid a close race. I don't think you could prioritize process and results as far as which is more important. They are both equal parts in accurate and reliable elections.