Re: Close Elections and Causality
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Kevin Elliott wrote: This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance whatsoever. How many got canceled last election- one number I heard said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical fluctuations. Quite. The problem here is what happens when the mean expected error of the estimate given by the ballot starts to get significant with respect to the mean popularity difference being measured. There is always some error, but it is not often that the actual difference in votes given to the main participants shrinks too low for the error to have any relevance. Simply put, we are faced with the scourge of binary decision problems based on noisy data. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Close Elections and Causality
Kevin Elliott wrote: At 12:38 + 11/10/00, Ken Brown wrote: But are there no rules in Florida allowing for a re-vote? If there really are 19,000 spoiled papers from once county, that sounds "massive" to me. It may not be fraud - the fools who designed the papers probably thought they were doing right - but it has the same effect. This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance whatsoever. It is if I have a vague idea how big a county is. If a state the size of Florida has 60-ish counties I would be surprised if many of them had populations much over about million or less than 100,000 if the counties were reasonably randomly populated (if there has been an attempt to equalise the populations then even more so) Also, from years of political hackery hanging around in elections, I know that over here spoiled votes are rarely as much as 1% of the total. So we have 3 possibilities - Palm Beach County is unusually large, Floridan voters are stupider than voters in London, or something went unusually wrong in that county. Assuming the county is the one described at http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us then it is quite large. You'd have to compare it to other counties to see if it was worse. How many got canceled last election- one number I heard said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical fluctuations. Still could be a sign that something is badly wrong. Just because the last election was a shambles there as well doesn't meant that this one should have been. If there is a problem it ought to be fixed. More importantly, the ballot was approved by both parties before the election took place. If they didn't bitch then they don't have the right to bitch now. Just goes to show that officials of more than one political party can be stupid (does that surprise you?) The citizens of Palm Beach (or wherever) have, under you constitution the laws of Florida a right to vote in fair elections. (Over here in Britain we always sort of assume that US elections are corrupt anyway, especially in the South :-) Obviously, the only reason this is being talked about at all by anyone more than thirty miles from Lake Okechobee is because of the close-run Presidential election. That is what brought the (possibly) messy state of the election in Florida to light. Some Floridans wanted recounts, or possibly even recounts. The chances are they wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't been for the presidential problem. Are you saying that they mustn't use their rights under local, Floridan, law because it delays the appointment of the electoral college and further confuses the presidential race? That local law and due process be suspended for the convenience of the Federal system? Ken
Re: Close Elections and Causality
At 12:23 AM 11/13/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] #These spoiled ballots don't imply that the voters who #created them didn't ask for and receive new ballots. Those 30,000 (not 19,000) were from the ballot box, not replaced ballots from on-site. That's not what I heard. steve
Re: Close Elections and Causality
At 12:38 + 11/10/00, Ken Brown wrote: But are there no rules in Florida allowing for a re-vote? If there really are 19,000 spoiled papers from once county, that sounds "massive" to me. It may not be fraud - the fools who designed the papers probably thought they were doing right - but it has the same effect. This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance whatsoever. How many got canceled last election- one number I heard said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical fluctuations. More importantly, the ballot was approved by both parties before the election took place. If they didn't bitch then they don't have the right to bitch now. -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#23758827
Re: Close Elections and Causality
Kevin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: %This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to %think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance %whatsoever. How many got canceled last election- one number I heard %said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect %considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical %fluctuations. Bzzzt! Wrong. http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB973893500998857873.htm # #November 10, 2000 # #Palm Beach Official Disputes Claim By Bush Campaign on Invalid #Ballots # #By JACKIE CALMES Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL # #WASHINGTON -- The Bush campaign is dead wrong on one of its prime #arguments in response to complaints about voter confusion in #Florida's Palm Beach County, according to a top county official. # #Palm Beach County Commissioner Carol Roberts said in an interview #Friday that about 30,000 ballots were invalidated for their #presidential selection this week because voters had punched two #holes or none. That is more than twice the 14,000 invalidated #in 1996, which could be evidence of some amount of voter confusion #about the county ballot's much-criticized design. # #This week, both Bush campaign Chairman Don Evans and chief #strategist Karl Rove have claimed that about 19,000 ballots' #presidential votes were invalidated, or not significantly more #than four years ago, when turnout was lower. But that 19,000 #represents only the invalidated ballots with two holes punched #for president, the commissioner says. More than 10,000 additional #ballots were invalidated for having no presidential vote, she #explains, for a combined 30,000. # #"It's not a correct argument," Ms. Roberts, a Democrat, said #of the Bush officials' contention that this year's invalidated #ballots are comparable to the number four years ago. "It's just #not accurate." Kevin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: %More importantly, the ballot was approved by both %parties before the election took place. Thus demonstrating the ballot design problem is non-partisan. I asked a [Bush-voting] friend why the live-and-let-die attitude towards such a large loss of people's votes, and he admitted it was because he wanted Bush to win, and that Gore probably had the votes.
Re: Close Elections and Causality
At 02:41 PM 11/9/00 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: At 09:02 AM 11/9/00 -0800, Tim May wrote: I agree that that's a strong point - if any of those 19000 voters was confused, the time for them to raise the issue was at the poll. If they _did_ ask "hey, this is confusing, how do I vote for Gore?" at the polling place, and the poll workers told them what to do and voided their ballots anyway, then they've got a cause of action. If they didn't complain, it's much harder to argue. Who says they didn't? These spoiled ballots don't imply that the voters who created them didn't ask for and receive new ballots. That's a different total and one which I have not seen in the media? steve
Re: Close Elections and Causality
Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] #These spoiled ballots don't imply that the voters who #created them didn't ask for and receive new ballots. Those 30,000 (not 19,000) were from the ballot box, not replaced ballots from on-site. White Supremacist Tim "I'd like to see a race riot" May Moroned: #...liberal Jews...the Jews...liberal Jews coming to get our guns. HA HA HA! A paranoid racist fuck. You're the Buchanan of the Cypherpunks list. "In the name of the Lord, let's get behind George Bush." ---Patrick Buchanan, who received "0%" of the vote (.5%)
Re: Close Elections and Causality
Tim May wrote: * In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed? * In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day? * Did the woman who voted at 9 a.m. but whose vote was counted at the _end_ of the final count, and whose vote seemingly "caused" one candidate to win and another to lose _actually_ "cause" the outcome? * Did Oregon, for example, whose votes were counted last and whose votes put a candidate over the top actually "cause" the outcome? [... quite a lot snipped...] This is almost an argument *for* re-running the election. If the Palm Beach (or whatever the place is called) voters tip the balance to either Gore or Bush can they in any real sense be said to have decided the election? Their votes still won't count for any more than any other citizen of Florida. ISTM that the real reason for avoiding a re-vote is is the practicality of it. All that money, media attention and lawyerage will be focussed on a small group of people, as Tim points out later: Deciding that one of those states or one of those counties was "decisive" (caused the outcome, was a hinge point, etc.) and thus should be given a chance to hold a new vote, has numerous implications for fairness: * instead of being just another voter, just another voting site, the N residents will now have the weight of the entire election outcome on their shoulders * intensive lobbying for votes will occur, far beyond the original lobbying (when I say "far beyond" I mean by several orders of magnitude...it might be that all residents would have to be sequestered from the time of the announcement of a re-vote to the actual re-vote just to ensure that bribes are not offered, etc.). [...more snips...] Rules are rules. The time to object is beforehand. Unless extremely serious voter fraud is found, results should not be thrown out when those results are in accordance with the rules. In no cases should a re-vote of a "hinge county" be allowed for less-than-massive-fraud reasons. But are there no rules in Florida allowing for a re-vote? If there really are 19,000 spoiled papers from once county, that sounds "massive" to me. It may not be fraud - the fools who designed the papers probably thought they were doing right - but it has the same effect. And, of course, Palm County will _not_ be given a second chance to vote in this election. I guarantee it. When did they make you a Florida judge? (About the same time they made me an expert on the laws of a state I've never visited know nothing about I suppose...) Ken Brown (unfortunately a fan of elections and constitutions)
Re: Close Elections and Causality
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote: In close elections, as in close sports games, as in the golf example, there will be many events which are later claimed to be "hinge points," or forks. Which is pretty much caused by the count being seen as an advancing 'race' with a definite order. I've never understood what the hell is a direct broadcast all about when all the votes have already been cast. Again, a misuse of the term "causation." Yep. People tend to have trouble with things causal. Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site. In even simpler terms, if there is an actual draw, every single vote is precisely as much the fork as any other. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Re: Close Elections and Causality
At 3:17 PM +0200 11/10/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote: In close elections, as in close sports games, as in the golf example, there will be many events which are later claimed to be "hinge points," or forks. Which is pretty much caused by the count being seen as an advancing 'race' with a definite order. I've never understood what the hell is a direct broadcast all about when all the votes have already been cast. Yes, this is precisely the key. The issue of which voting areas "pushed the victor over the top" or "caused" his victory are artifacts of the order in which the vote was counted. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Re: Close Elections and Causality
At 03:54 PM 11/9/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote: * In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed? * In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day? I believe the concept is called 'sudden death'. Hey, leave Jim Bell alone! :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Close Elections and Causality
* In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed? * In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day? * Did the woman who voted at 9 a.m. but whose vote was counted at the _end_ of the final count, and whose vote seemingly "caused" one candidate to win and another to lose _actually_ "cause" the outcome? * Did Oregon, for example, whose votes were counted last and whose votes put a candidate over the top actually "cause" the outcome? First, a few words about causality. Most people think they know about cause-and-effect. The earth turns, and this "causes" the sun to rise. A rooster crows, but this is _not_ the cause of the sun coming up...so we know from modern science. But how about this example: a golfer is about to be defeated in a tournament. He hits his ball, it appears to be going wide, then it hits a tree branch and bounces toward the hole. It goes in. The golfer wins. It turns out (pointed out by Patrick Suppes 30 years ago in one of his textbooks) that nearly every person will say something like "The tree branch _caused_ him to win." That is, the tree branch is seen as an intervening agent which altered history. The weird thing is that a ball bouncing off a tree branch is quite clearly a _scattering_ event. In our crypto and information theory terms, we would say it "increases entropy," it randomizes the outcome. The fact that sometimes the randomization or scattering works to the benefit of one player does not mean much about "causation." How this relates to voting: In close elections, as in close sports games, as in the golf example, there will be many events which are later claimed to be "hinge points," or forks. -- Someone will say that a highway being closed prevented them from getting to the polling place in time, and that there additional vote "would have made the difference." They want a re-vote. -- Someone who voted at 9 a.m. will be characterized as having "caused" the outcome to be as it was...which is an obvious misuse of "causation" (just by the basic ontology that her vote at 9 a.m. could not have "caused" other votes to be as they were). -- The most commonly heard version of this "causation fallacy" is the usual stuff about how "Oregon made the difference. The voters in Oregon caused Al Gore to win." Do the mental experiment of assuming votes were tallied in the _other direction_, with votes on the West Coast counted and reported _before_ votes to the east. Then the comments would be about how "Rhode Island made the difference...the voters in Rhode Island caused Al Gore to be elected." Again, a misuse of the term "causation." Ironically, the book I recommended several weeks ago, Judea Pearl's "Causality," is very apropos here. It _caused_ me to better understand these points. OK, how about re-votes? Many are calling for a re-vote in Palm County, Florida. Various issues are cited, and the "voters in Palm County will make the difference" point is heard often. "The vote in Florida will cause one or the other of the candidate to win." "The outcome hinges on the vote in Palm County." First off, the points above, about causality and who gets counted last, apply. Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site. Thus, some people didn't bother to vote, some were careless in reading the ballot instructions, some just made random marks, some were drunk, all of the usual stuff happening in polling places across the country. This despite the estimated $3 billion spent on wooing voters. Deciding that one of those states or one of those counties was "decisive" (caused the outcome, was a hinge point, etc.) and thus should be given a chance to hold a new vote, has numerous implications for fairness: * instead of being just another voter, just another voting site, the N residents will now have the weight of the entire election outcome on their shoulders * intensive lobbying for votes will occur, far beyond the original lobbying (when I say "far beyond" I mean by several orders of magnitude...it might be that all residents would have to be sequestered from the time of the announcement of a re-vote to the actual re-vote just to ensure that bribes are not offered, etc.). * the claims by some that people would simply "repeat their votes, except without the confusing ballot issue" are naive. Sensing their new role as determiners of the outcome, many would change their original votes (And of course there would be no way of knowing if someone had changed their vote, for obvious reasons that ballots are not linkable to the voter.) * and there are the points about the ballot raised earlier: the ballot had been used before, there
RE: Close Elections and Causality
Title: RE: Close Elections and Causality Thanks Tim. (First, I genuinely appreciate the specificity. Now we can discuss just where we disagree.) Given your points, one would have to argue that the proper election would have to be extremely simultaneous (e.g. everyone votes within 1 hour or whatever will most likely beat any realistic attempt to predict voter results before the vote is actually finished). I can see your point. However, it ain't gonna happen precisely because people have normal life concerns that truly are 24x7 and simply cannot work around them. (e.g. kids, certain kinds of jobs, etc ...). A reasonable level of flexibility is required. Reasonable appears to mean opening polls for most of the day, but I would hate to have some faceless fed tell me what reasonable is. Tax day is another example. Shit. Why should the Post Office do anything extra special for you if you don't get your forms filed in time? Why should they set up special lines and special times on the night of April 15? Because it's a compromise. It's pragmatic. The goal is to get people to file and to file on time. Same thing here. The goal is to give people a chance to vote. Otherwise, national elections should have national rules, according to your reasoning. States should not be allowed to set up their own mechanisms to vote on national elections. But in fact, the states ARE granted such flexibility because that's the tradition. It does not fit yours or someone else's absolute ideals, but then it's such a huge process and who knows what level of flexibility each state or local region needs. So on the issue of extending hours: If each district, county, township, neighborhood should decide to open the polls LONGER, I can't see a problem with that. If they close it earlier, it's probably not a problem either unless someone felt they did not have a chance to get to the polls. Then someone will have to decide whether that person had a fair chance to vote. But you don't want some no-name federal government bureaucrat deciding what constitutes a fair and reasonable chance to vote in your circumstances, right? Yes, I know, you can probably name all sorts of extreme and clearly abusive behavior that this would allow. But surprisingly, most people do not abuse the system. Most people don't if it is too inconvenient to be a pain-in-the-ass. On the issue of re-voting: The causality and the hinge issues are irrelevant if ANY state, county, district, whatever can go to a judge and argue (not demand arbitrarily) for re-vote. It's exactly YOUR argument: Just because county X is demanding a re-vote does not suddenly make that county the hinge vote. They obviously do not know or care if county Y also demand a re-vote. Same flaw. Because every area of the country have the same right (as Palm Beach) to demand a re-vote. But reasonableness and compromise will usually demand some upper bound on how much of this can occur to correct for any problems that arise. My personal view is that it is obvious that the election is close, period. Therefore, any particular place where it's winner-take-all, a reasonable request to re-vote should be granted. Lots of places here and abroad have the concept of run-off elections for precisely the same reasons: Let's see what the voters really want. Ern -Original Message- From: Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Close Elections and Causality [ Long educational rant about causation and how some people are not clued in. ]
RE: Close Elections and Causality
At 9:43 AM -0800 11/9/00, Ernest Hua wrote: Thanks Tim. (First, I genuinely appreciate the specificity. Now we can discuss just where we disagree.) Given your points, one would have to argue that the proper election would have to be extremely simultaneous (e.g. everyone votes within 1 hour or whatever will most likely beat any realistic attempt to predict voter results before the vote is actually finished). I can see your point. However, it ain't gonna happen precisely because people have normal life concerns that truly are 24x7 and simply cannot work around them. (e.g. kids, certain kinds of jobs, etc ...). "Designing fairer elections" has very little to do with my points, about causality, re-dos, and re-votes. I can think of various improvements to the election process, such as operating the polls for a 15 hour period, nationwide, simultaneously. Whatever. This is a matter for those involved in designing elections, not at all related to this business of whether some particular polling site should get a "do-over." I urge you to get involved in the Election Commission in your state and to make your suggestions for future elections. A reasonable level of flexibility is required. "Reasonable" appears to mean opening polls for most of the day, but I would hate to have some faceless fed tell me what reasonable is. The voting periods are set by the states, not the Feds. You, ironically, seem to be arguing for more of a role for the Feds, not less of a role. Same thing here. The goal is to give people a chance to vote. Otherwise, national elections should have national rules, according to your reasoning. States should not be allowed to set up their own mechanisms to vote on national elections. See what I mean? How do you square your "I would hate to have some faceless fed tell me what reasonable is" with "states should not be allowed to set up their own mechanisms..." point? I really need to give up on you. You blather, you ramble, you contradict yourself, you lack a consistent point of view, you probably would have voted for Buchanan and then claimed you wanted a do-over. So on the issue of extending hours: If each district, county, township, neighborhood should decide to open the polls LONGER, I can't see a problem with that. If they close it earlier, it's probably not a problem either unless someone felt they did not have a chance to get to the polls. You fail to grasp the essential point: the hours must not be changed once they have been established. It is utterly wrong to close the polls _early_. Your point "it's probably not a problem either someone felt..." is utterly vacuous. It is also utterly wrong to keep the pollling places open longer. Especially when a political calculation is made that more Democrats appear to be straggling, as was the calculation in St. Louis on Tuesday. That you don't get this point, about consistent rules, does not surprise me at all. On the issue of re-voting: The causality and the hinge issues are irrelevant if ANY state, county, district, whatever can go to a judge and argue (not demand arbitrarily) for re-vote. No, it is not irrelevant. It would give the courts the power to determine elections and would likely put an end to our system of government. Perhaps we should adopt your suggestion. Let the lawyers take over the election process just as they have taken over most things. Lots of places here and abroad have the concept of run-off elections for precisely the same reasons: Let's see what the voters really want. We did just this--we had the election. Do-overs are not allowed. Fools like you just don't get it. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Close Elections and Causality
At 09:02 AM 11/9/00 -0800, Tim May wrote: [lots of good comments on causality] -- Someone will say that a highway being closed prevented them from getting to the polling place in time, and that there additional vote "would have made the difference." They want a re-vote. A few years ago, Christie Whitman was busy campaigning for governor of New Jersey, and didn't get back home to vote in a school bond election. It lost by one vote. (On the other hand, the local district or state or somebody ignored their loss in the election and sold the bonds anyway) Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site. Thus, some people didn't bother to vote, some were careless in reading the ballot instructions, some just made random marks, some were drunk, all of the usual stuff happening in polling places across the country. This despite the estimated $3 billion spent on wooing voters. The electoral college system means that in almost all states, except the one or two with the middlest results, a difference of a small number of votes doesn't change the outcome. Usually even changing the outcome for a whole state doesn't change the outcome of the election either, except a few big states. In Florida, where the vote totals are close to equal, a small number of changed votes could change the election. Arguably, the votes on the 19000 spoiled ballots _have_ changed the outcome of the election, because the vote went into the voting booth saying "I'm voting for Gore", and the ballot counters tossed those votes after they were made. Rules are rules. The time to object is beforehand. Unless extremely serious voter fraud is found, results should not be thrown out when those results are in accordance with the rules. In no cases should a re-vote of a "hinge county" be allowed for less-than-massive-fraud reasons. I agree that that's a strong point - if any of those 19000 voters was confused, the time for them to raise the issue was at the poll. If they _did_ ask "hey, this is confusing, how do I vote for Gore?" at the polling place, and the poll workers told them what to do and voided their ballots anyway, then they've got a cause of action. If they didn't complain, it's much harder to argue. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
