In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree with those who would use a binomial model for the
> overall vote totals to describe the uncertainty in the Florida vote
> count. (This constitutes the Type III error discussed in another
> thread--the right answer to the wrong question.) I have a bit more
> sympathy for those like Paulos who point out that the error in the
> vote counting process is larger than the currently claimed Bush
> margin
> of victory, but only a bit. With academic detachment, they do not
> acknowledge that their claim, although correct, is irrelevant under
> current law and doesn't help resolve the current situation.
What concerns me is that lawyers, judges and legislators might
cite the Paulos and Gould articles to conclude that there is a
mathematical principle, and the standard error of the binomial
distribution has been cited, that prevents obtaining a more accurate
count when a vote is so close. My congressman, Bill Delahunt, was
elected because a judge looked at the dimpled ballots, overturned the
Democratic primary results, and declared him the winner by 200 votes.
Paulos & Gould's argument implies that judges should just give up in
such cases and flip a coin. The fallacious argument that elections
are Bernoulli trials might lead to 1) terminating recounts when such
recounts could obtain a more accurate result and 2) saying that once a
Presidential election in a state draws within sqrt(n)/2, let the
legislature decide. Such a decision shouldn't be based on a fallacious
statistical argument.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
