i think if you look at the graphs down the page at the url shown below ...
>http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/palm-beach.pdf
it is pretty hard to argue that the data for buchanan this year is similar
to what it was in 1996 against dole ...
other counties showed even more votes for buchanan back then that palm
beach did this year .... and some were not much less ... but, THIS year,
there is not a single other county that is anywhere near the palm beach
count for buchanan ...
is it plausible to argue that buchanan has this magical stronghold grip on
ONLY palm beach county in all of the 67 counties in florida??
and all the other counties are much much lower
the values for buchanan versus bush ... and gore ... and against total
votes cast ... are clearly outliers
how come? what is a sensible explanation? ballot problems ... the
discrepancy between what they were told in the media ... gore is second on
the list ... which translates into second punch hole ... but, the ballot
did not work exactly like that ...
At 03:59 PM 11/9/00 -0400, Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
>Juan Zuluaga wrote:
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> > Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 3:57 PM -0500
> > From: Greg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Subject: important: election results
> >
> > As you probably all know, Bush has 1700 more votes in Florida over Gore.
> > However, folks in Palm Beach were complaining that their ballots were
> > confusing, and many people voted for Buchanan when they thought they were
> > voting for Gore. With the help of my wife Chris, I analyzed the county by
> > county presidential results for Florida. The results are clear: the
> ballot
> > for Palm Beach cost Gore approximately 2200 votes. A simple regression of
> > Buchanan's vote on Bush's vote shows that Buchanan should have only gotten
> > 800 votes, not 3400.
> >
> > Don't believe me? Look for yourself: It's not even close! Palm Beach is
> > an outlier beyond all belief!!!
>
>
> Hoooold on. Look at the pictures again:
>
>http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/palm-beach.pdf
>
> THESE DATA ARE NOT NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED. Nor does the assumption of
>homoscedasticity even begin to apply. Moreover, the "Bush" and "Gore"
>numbers are mostly proxies for county size, which is roughly
>logsymmetric. Doing least-squares regression on these data is just
>meaningless.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
