P.G.Hamer wrote:
Ignoring any non-UK aspect of the situation ...
I think that there are two issues here. Firstly, is it OK to have a parliament
whose allegiances match that of the overall popular vote. Secondly, how do
you decide who gets elected.
I am comparatively unworried about the
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
The UK has effective disenfrachisement of most of the
members of its Liberal party. Also, the US was definitely
set up NOT to be "democratic"; the British democracy has
Anon. wrote:
H
But do not rush to a proportional system. It can have very
bad consequences, as can be seen from Israel and Italy, and
which was the case in France until de Gaulle reformed the
structure of the government.
It works fine in Scandinavia. The Swedish People's Party in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"P.G.Hamer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anon. wrote:
H
But do not rush to a proportional system. It can have very
bad consequences, as can be seen from Israel and Italy, and
which was the case in France until de Gaulle reformed the
structure of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could of course have the voters choose which people will be elected
from each party, instead of letting the parties rank their candidates
on a list. This is how it works in Finland.
Sounds interesting.
How many members of parliament are there in Finland?
How
"Anon." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But do not rush to a proportional system. It can have very
bad consequences, as can be seen from Israel and Italy, and
which was the case in France until de Gaulle reformed the
structure of the government.
It works fine in Scandinavia. The Swedish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You could of course have the voters choose which people will be
elected from each party, instead of letting the parties rank
their candidates on a list. This is how it works in Finland.
In Norway we do both. First you pick the list of names belong to
the party for
Herman Rubin wrote:
The UK has effective disenfrachisement of most of the
members of its Liberal party. Also, the US was definitely
set up NOT to be "democratic"; the British democracy has
greatly eroded the rights the people won in the Bill of
Rights and the Petition of Right. Democracy
Thom Baguley wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
The UK has effective disenfrachisement of most of the
members of its Liberal party. Also, the US was definitely
set up NOT to be "democratic"; the British democracy has
greatly eroded the rights the people won in the Bill of
Rights and the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
The UK has effective disenfrachisement of most of the
members of its Liberal party. Also, the US was definitely
set up NOT to be "democratic"; the British democracy has
greatly eroded the rights the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronald Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In sci.stat.edu Herman Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I have been shocked at the unprofessional, bias, and cluelessly
partisan comments
In article 8v4bqt$bm3i$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rachel Pearce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a Brit living in America I am not entitled to comment on most of the points
in
this argument, but I would like to say a few things:
a) People in America apparently vote with machines and not just machines,
but
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:35:33 GMT, "Robert Chung" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
..
On 18 Nov 2000, Herman Rubin wrote, inter alia:
Dixville Notch, Vermont votes at midnight, and is widely
reported. But I doubt that this is what you mean.
Dixville Notch is in New Hampshire. :-)
(In fact, I'm not at all sure that any place except New Hampshire uses
"notch" for a pass
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:11:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NY Times on "statisticians' view" of election
On 18 Nov 2000, Herman Rubin wrote, inter alia:
Dixville Notch, Vermont votes at midnight, and is widely
reported. B
In sci.stat.edu Ronald Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NUMBER WORDS CORRECT IN VOCABULARY TEST
POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION Mean N Std Dev Grouped Median Std.
Error of Mean
STRONG DEMOCRAT 5.83 263 2.22 5.81
.14
NOT STR DEMOCRAT 6.02 365 2.01
Should we not be concerned with some measurement issues before we debate
the evidence? What were the items on the 10-item test? That is, everyone
seems to be jumping the gun... doesn't anyone care about validity anymore?
:(
WBW
It has created controversy, as witnessed by the replies it has
generated, therefore it is controversial.
I am not sure why the results that were presented need to be terribly
controversial. Democratic supporters tend to be minority, older, poorer,
and less educated than their republican
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Magill, Brett wrote:
It has created controversy, as witnessed by the replies it has
generated, therefore it is controversial.
I am not sure why the results that were presented need to be terribly
controversial. Democratic supporters tend to be minority, older,
Michael Granaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Magill, Brett wrote:
Gore also won consistently among minorities and lower income groups. In
those cases the stereotype is dead on.
Michael
Does this correlate in your view with a higher likelihood
of their submitting
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I have been shocked at the unprofessional, bias, and cluelessly
partisan comments that have been made on this thread. Comments like "Bush voters
being more educated" do not reflect the educated mind, but
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Ronald Bloom wrote:
Michael Granaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gore also won consistently among minorities and lower income groups. In
those cases the stereotype is dead on.
Michael
Does this correlate in your view with a higher likelihood
of their
In sci.stat.edu Herman Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I have been shocked at the unprofessional, bias, and cluelessly
partisan comments that have been made on this thread. Comments like "Bush vote
rs
As a Brit living in America I am not entitled to comment on most of the points
in
this argument, but I would like to say a few things:
a) People in America apparently vote with machines and not just machines,
but machines of a type (card punch) which was being retired when
I started work nearly
"Neil W. Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:49:09 -0500
From: "Neil W. Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NY Times on "statisticians' view" of election
Paul Thompson wrote, speaking of "caustic jerks":
Herman Rubin wrote
In sci.stat.consult Herman Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those who voted for Bush are more likely to be literate,
You're really quite serious, aren't you? Can
you site any demographic data to support this?
and in particular aware of what the punch card devices are
doing, and so
At this point, I have been shocked at the unprofessional, bias, and cluelessly
partisan comments that have been made on this thread. Comments like "Bush voters
being more educated" do not reflect the educated mind, but rather the lawyerly
temperament that Any argument is equally valid.
Those,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"P.G.Hamer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
Those who voted for Bush
snip
and so push harder on the punch to make sure that it
went all the way through.
A related interpretation is that those who
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article 8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rodney Sparapani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) they didn't examine the undervotes in the original count or the
state-law mandated
re-count; it's only in the third count
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:56:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Occam's razor would say that undercount pickups (due to manual
"discovery" of chad-issue ballots) in statistically greater
proportion than the overall breakdown of the county
is due to vote tampering by unknown persons of
Paul Thompson wrote, speaking of "caustic jerks":
Herman Rubin wrote:
You may be making a Type 3 error. Remember, the null
hypothesis is always false.
Those who voted for Bush are more likely to be literate,
This is the kind of offensive, stupid comment that belongs on political
"Neil W. Henry" wrote:
Paul Thompson wrote, speaking of "caustic jerks":
Herman Rubin wrote:
You may be making a Type 3 error. Remember, the null
hypothesis is always false.
Those who voted for Bush are more likely to be literate,
This is the kind of offensive, stupid
In sci.stat.edu Neil W. Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
Those who voted for Bush are more likely to be literate,
Rubin's is not a very controversial statement. I would think that most readers
of this newsgroup not only agree with it, but have access to
Ronald Bloom wrote:
Lastly, I will repeat what I wrote previously: I fail to appreciate
the alleged signficance of "literacy" or "relative literacy"
in regard to someone's likelihood of committing one or another
error of cognition or dexterity in manipulating either simple
or complex
Ronald Bloom wrote:
In sci.stat.edu Ron Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronald Bloom wrote:
Lastly, I will repeat what I wrote previously: I fail to appreciate
the alleged signficance of "literacy" or "relative literacy"
in regard to someone's likelihood of committing one or another
In sci.stat.edu Ron Hardin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ronald Bloom wrote:
Lastly, I will repeat what I wrote previously: I fail to appreciate
the alleged signficance of "literacy" or "relative literacy"
in regard to someone's likelihood of committing one or another
error of cognition or
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronald Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is certainly a controversial statement. It is logically equivalent to
the statement that:
"Non Bush-voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters"
and I assume that the intended reading is that:
"Gore
In sci.stat.edu Radford Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronald Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is certainly a controversial statement. It is logically equivalent to
the statement that:
"Non Bush-voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters"
Neil W. Henry wrote:
Paul Thompson wrote, speaking of "caustic jerks":
Herman Rubin wrote:
You may be making a Type 3 error. Remember, the null
hypothesis is always false.
Those who voted for Bush are more likely to be literate,
This is the kind of offensive, stupid
NUMBER WORDS CORRECT IN VOCABULARY TEST
POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION Mean N Std Dev Grouped Median Std.
Error of Mean
STRONG DEMOCRAT 5.83 263 2.22 5.81
.14
NOT STR DEMOCRAT 6.02 365 2.016.00
.11
IND,NEAR DEM
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rodney Sparapani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) they didn't examine the undervotes in the original count or the
state-law mandated
re-count; it's only in the third count where they are considering
them, which is what
is so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rodney Sparapani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) they didn't examine the undervotes in the original count or the
state-law mandated
re-count; it's only in the third count where they are considering
them, which is what
is so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
i tell you want I find disturbing:
the "chad undercount error" that was discovered in the Volusia
county complete hand count went 62% to Gore and 38% to Bush.
However, as a whole, Volusia was
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:35:33 GMT, "Robert Chung" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
i tell you want I find disturbing:
the "chad undercount error" that was discovered in the Volusia
county complete
"Rich Ulrich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Oh! that's interesting. I was picturing the *cards* as the source of
variance.
Even if manufacturing control is
good, I bet that a dry-and-crisp card is voted with fewer errors than
a card
I think Paul's idea of eliminating punch cards is probably a good one. But, this is
really only a problem with large voting districts. The error rate is about 32 out of
1000. Usually, the error is an undervote, i.e. somebody voted, but it was not
counted. For small districts, it would be
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rodney Sparapani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) they didn't examine the undervotes in the original count or the
state-law mandated
re-count; it's only in the third count where they are considering
them, which is what
is so disturbing.
i tell you want I find
Warren Sarle wrote:
I would prefer to blame the NY Times article on the ignorance of the
reporter rather than on the abdication of professional responsibility
by the statisticians involved, but clearly some big-name statisticians
need to respond to this article.
To suggest that there is
I would prefer to blame the NY Times article on the ignorance of the
reporter rather than on the abdication of professional responsibility
by the statisticians involved, but clearly some big-name statisticians
need to respond to this article.
To suggest that there is no way to get a more
The following might be interest for those following press coverage of the
possible role of statistics in this dispute. (The printed version in the
edition I receive contained additional comments by David Freedman, also
downplaying the potential of statistics in this highly charged situation.
I
52 matches
Mail list logo
