-Caveat Lector-
Nature's Political Science
By Steven Milloy
Junkscience.com
November 29, 2000
A prestigious science journal is again using junk science to
inappropriately insert itself into a political controversy.
The British journal Nature is rushing to release a study by
Canadian researchers reporting that the butterfly ballot used in
Palm Beach County, Florida in the recent presidential election
"appears to cause systematic errors in the casting of votes."
The study could be used as "scientific evidence" in any
litigation involving allegations that the ballot's design
disenfranchised voters.
The study has two parts. It took place immediately following the
U.S. presidential election amid the controversy surrounding the
Palm Beach County butterfly ballot.
In the first part, 161 college students received a butterfly
ballot with the names of the leaders of ten Canadian political
parties and space for a write-in candidate. The ballot was
designed so that the leaders of the two dominant parties appeared
in the first and second positions in the first column, just like
on Palm Beach County ballot.
Stockwell Day, leader of the Canadian Alliance Party, was in the
first position, corresponding to George W. Bush's position on
the Palm Beach County ballot. Liberal Party leader Jean
Chretien's position corresponded to the position of Al Gore.
Progressive Conservative Party leader Joe Clark was positioned to
correspond with Pat Buchanan's position.
Another 163 students received a single column ballot.
Students were asked to evaluate any confusion caused by the a
ballots on a 7-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater
confusion.
The mean "confusion" scores were 3.69 for the butterfly ballot
and 2.14 for the single-column format. No students made voting
errors. The researchers concluded that although greater
confusion might lead to voter error, the absence of voter error
was attributed to "students skilled at completing complex scoring
sheets."
Apparently unhappy with the error-free result, the researchers
took their ballot to a shopping mall where 112 shoppers were
asked to evaluate the ballots and to "vote."
The butterfly ballot reportedly was more confusing to shoppers
(mean scores of 3.52 vs. 2.30). Four voting errors were made on
the 53 butterfly ballots; no voting errors were made on the
single-column ballot.
Three of the four errors on the butterfly ballot corresponded to
the Gore-Buchanan positions on the Palm Beach ballot. Those
errors resulted in votes unintentionally given to the "Pat
Buchanan" candidate. So of the 15 people who intended to vote
for the "Gore" candidate, 20 percent erroneously voted for the
"Buchanan" candidate instead.
The researchers conclude, "Thus, the butterfly ballot appears to
cause systematic errors in the casting of votes... which could
cast doubt on the validity of the results from the Palm Beach
County vote."
But I'm not quite sure that testing the butterfly ballot on 53
mall shoppers really sheds light on a potential systematic
problem with the Palm Beach County ballot. In terms of voter
"error," the two results in this study (students vs. shoppers)
are inexplicably inconsistent.
This is not a scientific result -- something that would take
several solidly-designed studies involving larger populations
representative of actual voters and producing consistent results.
The researchers add, "It is unclear whether a biasing ballot
format does or should have legal standing in adjudicating
disputes after an election. But given the centrality of
elections to the democratic process, it is remarkable that
biasing formats continue to be used."
What's remarkable is that, yet again, a prestigious science
journal is exploiting its reputation and using junk science to
bolster a "favorite son" candidate. (Nature and Al Gore see
eye-to-eye on global warming, too).
In January 1999, Journal of the American Medical Association
editor George Lundberg was fired for publishing a small survey of
college students reporting that 60 percent didn't think oral sex
constituted "sex" -- consistent with President Clinton's defense
and just in time for the impeachment proceedings.
Nature is now butting into the biggest political controversy
since that time, hyping shoddy results to interfere with the U.S.
political process.
Who's the editor of Nature?
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
