In sci.stat.edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> you can also combine the Florida exit polling data with the following
> summarized data from a recent conference on illiteracy:
How can you "combine exit polling data" with [................]?
Did exit polls conduct literacy tests? Is that what you
mean? Or are you saying that the socio=economic indicators
recorded in exit-polls then can be used to predict
literacy or illiteracy? Or level of literacy skills?
But you see, the original assertion was that mistakes
involving voting-machines were more likely to be made
by Gore voters, because (this was his inference, not mine)
they "are less likely to be literate".
So far, NOT ONE person here has responded to my
point that the likelihood of getting into a tangle
of some sort with a machine or mechanical procedure
of some kind does not necessarily have anything
to do with one's level of literacy! (And that
illiterate persons may function Quite Well with
mechanical devices, &c)
For example, ballots spoiled could have been due to:
1.) Parkinsonism
2.) drunkenness
3.) failing eyesight
4.) failing voting-machine
5.) poor alignment of ballot in voting-machine
6.) confusion
7.) fatigue
8.) agitation
9.) sloppiness
10.) Distractedness
and, yes, I will allow
11.) Illiteracy
12.) etc,
13.) etc,...
Are any of these, honestly speaking, any more or less likely
to have occurred in the arguably small (but in
this case, perhaps significant) number of ballots
which were fouled up in one way or another?
Where does the original poster come up with the
remarkable discovery that "Illiteracy" somehow
is a category of explanation to sufficient to account
for the random and the systematic causes (such as
1-10) that result in fouled ballots in Fla?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
