Gene Gallagher wrote:
> I think it would be unwise to use random sampling theory, with or
> without the finite population correction, to infer what the percentage
> of Bush and Gore votes would be among the non-machine counted votes.
I agree and I didn't try to do that. I merely demonstrated that the
ineradicable margin-of-error argument is fallacious, thanks to the fpc.
> There were several analyses published in the press about who would
> have won a recount, based on the recounts in Broward, Palm Beach and
> Miami-Dade county. All of these models presented in the press
> predicted Bush would have won a state-wide recount. These models appear
> to have assumed that the uncounted votes were randomly drawn from the
> same population as the counted votes (i.e., determine on a
> precinct-by-prencinct basis the Bush-Gore votes, add a yield rate for
> the % of uncounted votes for which voter intent can be discerned,
> incorporate an error rate, and predict Bush v. Gore among the uncounted
> votes with an error rate).
> It appears that the non-machine-counted votes are anything but a
> random sample of the total vote. In Broward County, with punchcards,
> the undervote was significantly more pro-Bush (34%) than the machine
> vote (31%). This week, the Orlando Sentinel evaluated 6000 overvotes in
> the highly GOP Lake County. Many overvotes result from GOP and DEM
> voters voting for Bush or Gore and then confirming their choice by
> checking the write-in box and then writing in the same choice. They
> were trying to avoid any ambiguity, perhaps thinking back to earlier
> days of written ballots, and these voters got their ballots thrown out.
> These votes were being counted as per the Florida Supreme Court
> decision, but counting stopped with the SCOTUS decision. The Orlando
> Sentinel anlayzed the unambiguous votes and determined that Gore picked
> would have picked up 130 votes. A model based on a yield rate, an error
> rate multiplied by % of Bush-Gore votes, would be unlikely to have
> predicted that Gore would have picked up votes in heavily GOP counties.
> The take-home message is that an election should be viewed as a
> complete census and calculations of margins of error to the larger
> non-voting population are irrelevant.
I agree. Notice the population I used was the total of ballots cast, not any
irrelevant collection including non-voters.
My sample was the ballots that were not in question, because they were
correctly cast for one and only one of the several Presidential candidates.
> Sampling statistics might be used
> to infer the likely outcome of the non-machine counted vote, but
> indications are that these votes are not merely random draws from the
> larger pool of voters.
> Sampling statistics could play and did play a role in this election.
> Judge Sauls ruled that the Gore legal team did not present sufficient
> statistical evidence that a recount presented had a reasonable
> probability of altering the election outcome. I'm sure that there is a
> dissertation topic or two out there to develop statistical models that
> will past muster with a future Judge Sauls.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
