On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:17:31 GMT, Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>J. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> In today's local paper here on the Space Coast of Florida, an
>> elementary school teacher divided her 4th grade language arts class of
>> varied abilities into 3 distinct groups of 11 students. Each group
>> was asked to vote using the butterfly ballot now being questioned.
>> One group was asked to vote for Gore, the second for Bush, and lastly
>> for Buchanan. Without exception all the kids marked the ballots
>> correctly. A couple of days ago, the newspaper published another
>> similar study of 77 elementary school kids again with the same
>> results. Interestingly, the paper endorsed V.P. Gore and supports a
>> recount.
>>
>
> Would the group of kids doing a post-hoc experiment be
>biased inasmuch as the nature of the problem at hand may
>have become common-knowledge by now; even among kids; and
>so one would be forewarned of the error-mode in question,
>and be much less likely to fall into that mode of error?
>
>At any rate, what inference am I being prompted to draw here?
>That the people who claimed to have been confused were
>either (a) ignoramuses or (b) changing their tune after
>the fact?
>
>Is there some more generous interpretation, (c), say?
>
Sure, those who complained were truly confused.
BTW, it is my understanding each voter is allowed 2 additional
ballots should a given voter make an error. If voters were denied
these additional "attempts," then something is indeed very wrong. I
am puzzled why in overwhelmingly Democratic precincts, those who
complained were denied the additional ballots. Needless to say, it is
a troubling situation.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
