On 16 Nov 2000 20:23:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Warren Sarle) wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hayden) writes:
> > ... Maybe we should just agree that if the margin is less than
> > 0.5% on election night then we honestly say it's too close to call
>
> That doesn't help. There could still be disputes about whether
> the margin was less than 0.5%. And since the margin could be
> either +0.5% or -0.5%, disputes would happen roughly twice as
> often.
0.5% is too large, if it is taken on "millions". That's the same as
the 30,000 vote difference (so, 1874 was *way* under the limit) to
trigger the first re-count in Florida. At least one state uses a
trigger of 0.1%, which seems big enough to catch most mistakes.
By the way, this sort of thing has been done, in the U.S.
I don't remember hearing of it for a statewide office, but it's been
used for mayors, and more. The jurisdictions define a tie as a
certain small number after a re-count; and then do something random to
decide. I think there do have to be several precincts and thousands
of votes, before the assumption arises that there won't be a stable
count. And - after seeing Florida on TV - I figure that it ought to
depend on whether you are punching, scribbling, or whatever.
I don't think there is nearly the problem to get a candidate to admit
to "you tied" as to admit to "you lost".
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
