An Audit and a Recount Answer Different Questions

“The election was checked” leaves out the most useful part: what was checked, using which evidence, and with what result?

The word audit cannot carry the whole explanation.

The 2008 Minnesota recount in Olmsted County, photographed November 19, 2008. This historical photograph shows a recount, not a current election audit. Photo: Jonathunder. Image unmodified. Photo source · CC BY-SA 3.0

Identify the Procedure

A recount counts votes again in a specified contest. Its trigger, scope and method depend on the jurisdiction's rules. A post-election tabulation audit examines whether reported results are supported by ballot evidence, commonly using a sample.

A risk-limiting audit uses a statistical method that limits the risk of accepting an incorrect outcome without correcting it. When the evidence is insufficient, it can expand to a full hand count. The Election Assistance Commission explains the distinctions in its audit guide.

Match the Conclusion to the Scope

A tabulation check does not automatically investigate every question about registration, eligibility, custody or administration. Those subjects need their own evidence and procedures.

This matters in both directions. Do not dismiss a valid test because it did not answer an unrelated allegation. Do not stretch a valid test into a claim that every possible concern was examined.

Read an Audit Report With Four Questions

First, identify the contest and records covered. Second, find the sampling and comparison method. Third, examine the discrepancies and how they were resolved. Fourth, check what required further review.

A hypothetical report about one county and one contest should not silently become a statement about every contest in the state. Scope is part of the finding, not a footnote to discard.

The same discipline applies to criticism. A specific discrepancy deserves an explanation. A discrepancy alone does not establish its cause or its effect on the outcome.