Rich Ulrich 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.
> > 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
> [ snip, rest ]
>
> Bush would have?
> - I assume that is a typo.
> Or you read a weird press?
>
This CNN article was the first of several quoting Peyton
and Hansen's separate analyses that Bush would probably win a recount.
The models described aren't on their web pages, but earlier versions
are:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/01/jackson.factcheck/inde
x.html
Based on the counts coming out of Fl, it appears that the Gore
voters are far more prone to having their ballots rejected by
the machines.
--
Eugene D. Gallagher
ECOS, UMASS/Boston
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
