Upon receiving the petition the Office of the Clerk undertook a counting and sampling process. Once the signatures had been counted, a sample of signatures was taken using a methodology provided by the Government Statistician.
It’s a good question and I’d already thought of writing about it, so the commenter is getting a temporary reprieve from banishment for not providing a full name. I don’t know for certain, and the details don’t seem to have been published, which is a pity — they would be interesting and educationally useful, and there doesn’t seem to be any need for confidentiality.
While I can’t be certain, I think it’s very likely that the Government Statistician provided the estimation methodology from Statistics New Zealand Working Paper No 10-04, which reviews and extends earlier research on petition counting.
There are several issues that need to be considered
- removing signatures that don’t come with the required information
- estimating the number of eligible vs ineligible signatures
- estimating the number of duplicates
- estimating the margin of error in the estimate
- deciding what level of uncertainty is acceptable
The signatures without the required information are removed completely; that’s not based on sampling. Estimating eligible vs ineligible signatures is fairly easy by checking a sufficiently-large random sample — in fact, they use a systematic sample, taking names at regular intervals through the petition list, which tends to give more precise results and to be more auditable.
Estimating unique signatures is tricky, because if you halve your sample size, you expect to see 1/4 as many duplicates, 1/8 as many triplicates, and so on. The key part of the working paper shows how to scale up the the sample data on eligible, ineligible, and duplicate, triplicate, etc, signatures to get the unique unbiased estimator of the number of valid signatures and its variance.
Once the level of uncertainty is specified, the formulas tell you what sample size to verify and what to do with the results. I don’t know how the sample size is chosen, but it wouldn’t take a very large sample to get the uncertainty down to a few thousand, which would be good enough. In fact, since the methodology is public and the parties have access to the electoral roll in electronic form, it’s a bit surprising that the petition organisers didn’t run a quick check themselves before submitting it.
Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »