OpenTally/docs/validation.md

5.3 KiB

Validation

STV-counting software is frequently validated empirically by comparing the results of election counts to those generated by independent implementations. See, for example, [1–5]. The table describes the empirical validation performed on OpenTally to date.

Method Election Comparator Included test case
Scottish STV 2007 Glasgow council Linn ward election eSTV 2.0.16 (official)
OpenTally Meek Reverse engineered ballots for the ERS97 model election Algorithm 123
Meek STV (2006) Reverse engineered ballots for the ERS97 model election OpenSTV 1.7
Meek STV (New Zealand) Reverse engineered ballots for the ERS97 model election OpenSTV 1.7, Hill's nzmeek 6.7.7
Australian Senate STV 2019 Tasmanian Senate election EasyCount (official)
Australian Senate STV 2019 NSW Senate election EasyCount (official)
Australian Capital Territory STV 2020 Kurrajong Legislative Assembly election eVACS 2020 (official)
NSW Local Government STV 2021 City of Albury Council election PRCC Vote Count (official)
Minneapolis STV 2009 Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation election Results sheet (official)
Minneapolis STV 2013 Minneapolis Parks & Recreation Commissioner At Large election Results sheet (official)
Cambridge STV 2003 Cambridge City Council election OpenSTV 1.7, ChoicePlus Pro 2.1 (official)
Dáil Éireann STV 2002 Dublin North election Results sheet (official)
Wright STV EVE Online CSM 15 election ccp-wright-stv (official)
PRSA 1977 Proportional Representation Manual example 1 Model result (official)
PRSA 1977 40 elections from stvdb count.nl (RunasSudo version)
ERS97 Reverse engineered ballots for the ERS97 model election Model result (official)
ERS97 Joe Otten/eSTV ballots for the ERS97 model election Model result (official)
ERS76 Ballots adapted from Joe Otten/eSTV ERS97 Model result (official)
Church of England Joe Otten/eSTV ballots for the ERS97 model election eSTV 1.47

References

  1. Wichmann BA. Checking two STV programs. Voting Matters. 2000 Apr; (11): 6–8. http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE11/P4.HTM
  2. Wichmann BA. Validation of implementation of the Meek algorithm for STV. London: McDougall Trust; 2000 Apr 28. http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/RES/MKVAL.pdf
  3. Koopman P, Hubbers E, Pieters W, Poll E, de Vries R. Testing the eSTV program for the Scottish local government elections. Nijmegen (NL): Radboud University; 2007 Mar 30. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/testing-the-estv-program-for-the-scottish-local-government-electi
  4. Conway A, Blom M, Naish L, Teague V. An analysis of New South Wales electronic vote counting. ACSW '17: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week multiconference. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1145/3014812.3014837
  5. Abate P, Dawson J, Goré R, Gray M, Norrish M, Slater A. Formal methods applied to electronic voting systems. Canberra: Australian National University; c2003. https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~rpg/EVoting/