Heat Maps: Difference between revisions
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[ | This page will explain how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of governance. | ||
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; '''--''' '''Heat Maps''' | |||
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages: | |||
* Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --[[Interesting Takeaways]] | |||
=== Heat Map? What's that? === | |||
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. In this case the red colors represent a larger number of observations found governance issues with the specific attribute. Conversely, green colors show 1) no governance issues identified if observed OR no governance issue because of a lack of observations in that area. | |||
Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; it may mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. Hence, the greater the shift towards the red color, the greater the number of observations of poor governance. | |||
==== Attribute Portion of Heat Map ==== | |||
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map (see below). This data is straightforward, a value of 1 is assigned to each relevant attribute that has an example of poor governance. This is a one-for-one relationship. The larger number of observations are shown in red colors. | |||
All Attributes were compared to other Attributes, not Principles. | |||
==== Principle Portion of Heat Map ==== | |||
A little math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes. | |||
For Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison. | |||
All Principles were compared to other Principles, not Attributes. | |||
=== Combined === | === Combined === | ||
'''To be developed.''' | |||
=== Jamies' Story === | === Jamies' Story === | ||
'''To be developed.''' | |||
=== Election Anomalies === | === Election Anomalies === | ||
| Line 25: | Line 50: | ||
==== Heat Map of Election Anomalies ==== | ==== Heat Map of Election Anomalies ==== | ||
[[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]] | [[File:Heat Map Election Anomalies 14 Items.jpg|border]] | ||
==== Election Anomaly Summary ==== | |||
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles: | |||
* '''Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values''' (54%) | |||
* '''Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies''' (54%) | |||
* '''Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities''' (43%) | |||
* '''Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information''' (39%) | |||
* '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Authority''' (see the following Note for Principle #2) | |||
Note for '''Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility''' scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute [[2.01]]. | |||
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement. | |||
* Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries). | |||
* The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role. | |||
* The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case. | |||
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap. | |||
Latest revision as of 17:08, 8 September 2026
This page will explain how the governance gaps were plotted on a Heat Map to identify the weakest areas of governance.
You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; -- Heat Maps
After learning about Governance Gaps additional supporting details are available from the following web pages:
- Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; --Interesting Takeaways
Heat Map? What's that?
A heat map is a graphical representation of data. The Heat Map uses colors to visualize the magnitude specific data point within a collection of a much larger data set. This allows the reader to quickly identify high and low values, clusters, or patterns without scanning raw numbers in a table or spreadsheet. In this case the red colors represent a larger number of observations found governance issues with the specific attribute. Conversely, green colors show 1) no governance issues identified if observed OR no governance issue because of a lack of observations in that area.
Green doesn't necessarily mean good governance; it may mean there was insufficient observations in this area to make a judgement. Hence, the greater the shift towards the red color, the greater the number of observations of poor governance.
Attribute Portion of Heat Map
Attribute data is presented on the right side of the heat map (see below). This data is straightforward, a value of 1 is assigned to each relevant attribute that has an example of poor governance. This is a one-for-one relationship. The larger number of observations are shown in red colors.
All Attributes were compared to other Attributes, not Principles.
Principle Portion of Heat Map
A little math was required to determine which Principles had the greater number of poor governance observations because of a wide range in the number attributes per Principle. For example, Principle #10 had 23 attributes while Principle #12 only had 5 Attributes.
For Principles on the left side of the heat map, a weighting factor was used to normalize the observations for a fairer comparison.
All Principles were compared to other Principles, not Attributes.
Combined
To be developed.
Jamies' Story
To be developed.
Election Anomalies
There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS
- AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit
- Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day
Heat Map of Election Anomalies
Election Anomaly Summary
The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:
- Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values (54%)
- Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies (54%)
- Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (43%)
- Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (39%)
- Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Authority (see the following Note for Principle #2)
Note for Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight Attribute 2.01.
- Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.
- Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).
- The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.
- The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.
All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State (Katie Hobbs), which was less than adequate. Public documents from Katie Hobbs that assessed the General Election in Maricopa County for 2020 was devoted to attacking the Senate for their oversight activities or simply parroted the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors positions. The Arizona Secretary of State was ineffective in that role because election anomalies recurred in the 2022 mid-term election. Hence, Principle #2 scored low because there was no evidence of Oversight Activities to assess with respect to how Oversight should function, which is a serious governance gap.
