----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord Sellar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Analysis of Votes
> At 8:03 PM -0400 14/11/2000, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> >In other words, any legal decision which does not count the hand recounts
> >elects George Bush as President. Any legal decision which allows the
hand
> >recounts likely elects Gore as President. What a situation.
>
> Wait. Wait wait wait. How can you say that the decision "elects"? If it's
a
> case of eliminating error, then it's an elimination of error that gives a
> clearer picture of the result of the PEOPLE voting Gore, isn't it? I mean
> if all the rest of the post is true? Whereas, if there are enough Gore
> votes that he would win, but the recounts are not considered, then the
> decision simply countermands the people's vote for Gore and places Bush in
> his place. I'm assuming the outcome as you say it, that is --
essentially,
> I am saying that the decision seems separate from the election, as an
> election is specifically the product of the vote ascertained as best as
> possible -- the decision either allows or prevents that being ascertained
> as best as possible (say, with multiple hand recounts if necessary). That
> assuming a relatively high security and elimination of the possibility of
> fraud as best as possible.
>
I think what John wrote reflects a common American way of thinking, that
says that winning is all that matters. (not that that is what John feels
mind you <G>)
Maybe what the closeness of this vote signifies, is that what America wants
is a truer spirit of compromise and cooperation between the rival parties.
Just an idea.
xponent
rob
