The first time I got an audit, I thought it was a good idea. Well, not anymore.
I've failed some when we changed the policy, initiated by - I believe - this topic. Since the new "close" reason was included, I go for it almost on every question that was nominated for closing and lacks any context or effort (i.e., copy/paste questions). I myself nominate such questions for closing if there was a request for edit in the comments and the OP didn't respond in a few hours.
But, there are many questions, especially those that were asked before we took this more serious stand on copy/paste questions, that were upvoted quite nicely, so I've expected to fail each such audit.
Because of that, like Carl, I now open almost every question in new tab, and check that it's not a trap. It's a pointless waste of time, but my alternative is to get "caught" simply for not agreeing with other voters of that time, possibly before the new "close" reason was added (when I myself voted against closing such questions, due to the lack of a proper "close" reason).
The alleged purpose of the audits is to force reviewers -- actually voters, which is important! -- to pay attention. But that's the problem! As the site's help says (my emphasis):
Our sites are all intended to be a sort of representative democracy. Moderator elections are an important part of that plan, but voting on questions and answers is the primary mechanism through which the community governs the site on a day to day basis. Every user with sufficient reputation can exercise their right to vote, every day that they visit the site.
In a representative democracy, people vote according to their personal views. Be it for the views different than those of a majority, or simply for being lazy, a voter in a representative democracy is allowed to vote differently than the majority. That is the core of a democratic system, and audits measure how close a person's vote is to that of a majority, punishing those who are not in accordance. Completely antidemocratic, and so anti-self-description of the site. I don't mind strict rules, but then don't make audits based on votes which can be -- and often are -- not in accordance with those.
If lazy voters are a problem, then all the incentive should be removed from such voting, i.e., badges. Who wants to help the community, doesn't need badges; those who vote for those little coloured circles won't do it anymore if those "medals" are gone.
But the system, as it is, is rotten. IMO, of course.
Edit: I forgot... I sometimes click "close" not to actually vote for it, but to see what did others select as the reason. Just "off-topic" from the description is not as specific as seeing which of these, which helps me focus on that particular reason and see if I consider it valid. An audit would "catch" me there as well.