In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rich Ulrich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> "With 10,000 no-punches where only half that many no-votes should be
|> expected (in Palm Beach County), they re-counted a 1% sample and came
|> up with 47 additional votes -- about half of the 100 or so that were
|> possible, and consistent with the number of no-votes that typically
|> are seen. There was no report of how many no-punches had existed.
|> Gore gained, as he was expected to, because Gore carried the county by
|> almost 2-to-1. "
|>
|> That's why I thought the re-count was a slam-dunk for Gore, and
|> (therefore) why the sec't'y of state had to oppose it to salvage a
|> Bush victory.
I agree with what Rich states, and this appears to be the motivation for
the positions of the two candidates. I believe that most would agree
that these motivations are entirely political.
Although I've read many interesting and useful comments from a
statistical perspective on this newsgroup, one issue is not being
discussed much. As a statistician, I think it's ludicrous to think that
it's acceptable for a candidate to "cherry pick" counties where he
believes a manual recount will give him the advantage.
Shortly after the election, someone posted a link to a statement by two
members of the ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy. Although
I didn't save the URL, I did save the statement. Here's a relevant
section:
------------------
Lauren Weinstein
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Peter G. Neumann
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility
Moderator, RISKS Forum
Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
"Sanity in the Election Process"
November 11, 2000
...
As is well known to election officials and voting system vendors, but
historically not advertised to the public at large, all voting systems
are subject to some degree of error -- electronic and mechanical systems
alike. Punchcard-based systems are no exception, for which a variety of
known problems can occur. These include poor ballot layout (currently a
major issue regarding the "butterfly" Palm Beach County ballot), machine
reading errors (often relating to incompletely punched ballot
selections, usually in the form of "hanging chad"), paper fatigue, and
other problems.
In general, so long as the interested parties both have observers
participating in manual recounts to assure a consensus on the
interpretation and tabulation of the cards, manual recounts provide the
MOST reliable mechanism for counting these cards accurately,
particularly due to the common hanging chad problem which often reads as
"closed" (no vote) when processed through automatic reading machines.
Indeed, manual counting is still prevalent today in England and Germany.
It is true that manual recounts tend to boost the number of votes
counted, again due to hanging chad and other problems noted above. This
suggests that if concerns are present regarding the fairness of a manual
recount only in particular counties, the obvious solution is to manually
recount in ALL Florida counties, and to manually count ALL votes (not
just a sampling). Yes, this will be slow, and potentially expensive.
But if the will of voters is not to be subjugated to technical flaws
over which they have no control, this would be the only fair course.
------------------
Given that manual recounts tend to boost the number of votes counted, it
follows that a manual recount in a county favoring Gore will tend to
yield a relative increase in the number of Gore votes, and that a manual
recount in a county favoring Bush will tend to yield a relative increase
in the number of Bush votes. Thus, recounting three Democratic counties
should enable Gore to take the lead in such a close election.
We haven't yet heard from the Florida Supreme Court, but I would find it
incredible if they would allow this type of maneuvering.
>From a scientific perspective, I believe that all counties should be
treated the same - either there should be no manual recounts or all
counties should be manually recounted. The last position is one that
was offered by Al Gore a few days ago as a means to bring closure to the
election. I was disappointed that Bush rejected Gore's proposal and the
only reasons I can think of for Bush to have done so are again purely
political. (The only possible argument I can think of is that a "fair"
manual recount is impossible in the current environment and that the
machine vote is at least not subject to human intervention, but this is
subject to debate.)
It will be interesting to hear the Florida Supreme Court's decision and
their rationale.
Chuck Davis
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
