Paul Bernhardt wrote:
> 
> Reg Jordan wrote on 11/10/00 10:51 AM:
> 
> >It's interesting that no Republicans have claimed that the ballot was
> >misleading -- all the complaints seem to come from Democrats. Wouldn't the
> >"misleading, confusing" nature of the ballot apply equally across the
> >voting spectrum?
> 
> Bush was listed first on the ballot, and the hole to punch for him was
> also the first hole. So, no confusion if you wanted to vote for Bush. If
> you wanted to vote for Gore, the second name on the ballot, you had to
> punch the *third* hole on the ballot, the second hole being for Buchanan.
> Given the unexpectedly high number of votes for Buchanan in that county
> (3000 of about 400,000 votes cast) as in the next largest Buchanan county
> (Pinnelas (Tampa-Clearwater area), Buchanan got 1000 of the 400,000 votes
> cast). You have to argue that Palm Beach county has more conservatives
> than Pinnelas. If that's the case you would expect Bush to have done
> better in Palm Beach than Pinnelas. But, the oposite is the case. Palm
> Beach went decisively for Gore, while Pinnelas was very close to evenly
> split, with Gore leading only slightly.


        Except that, curiously, the Bush-Gore split does *not* seem to be a
very good predictor of Buchanan vote. Plotting the log-transformed
proportion of Buchanan votes against the proportion of Bush votes:



     -4.0+                                 *
         -                                 *
logPBpro -                                     *    *
         -                                                 *
         -        P                                 *  *    *
     -5.0+                               ** *  *   *      *      *
         -                   *        * * 2*        *
         -                         2  * *  *     **  *   *
         -                       *              *       * * *      *
         -           *   *      *        2 * ***                 *
     -6.0+    *                  2   *  **    *
         -                    *        *       *
         -                    *   *        *   *
         -  *                      *       *             *
         -
     -7.0+                     *
         -
          
        
--+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+----Bushpro 
         0.320     0.400     0.480     0.560     0.640     0.720

The regression equation is
logPBpro = - 6.80 + 2.25 Bushpro

Predictor        Coef       StDev          T        P
Constant      -6.8005      0.4440     -15.31    0.000
Bushpro        2.2484      0.7821       2.88    0.005

S = 0.5867      R-Sq = 11.3%     R-Sq(adj) = 9.9%

        There's an effect, but it's very much weaker than the relationship
between county size and Buchanan votes. Voting for Buchanan is
apparently a rural thing, not a classic left-right thing. 

        -Robert Dawson


=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
                  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================

Reply via email to