In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"P.G.Hamer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [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
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
"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
[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 fo
[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 m
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
>
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
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 demo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
P.G.Hamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
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 rig
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 an
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. Democra
re:notches
Vermont has Smuggler's Notch between Stowe and Jeffersonville.
rb
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.st
>
> 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 mi
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 th
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
>>>
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,
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]...
...
"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 &qu
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 2
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 "Bu
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 likel
< re: "illiteracy" of Gore voters based on 10-item vocabulary test >
On 17 Nov 2000 06:50:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William B. Ware)
wrote:
> 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
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
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
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
>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 count
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
_
[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
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 literac
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
> >
> > 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,
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 o
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* th
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:
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 cogni
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 committin
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 ma
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, bu
"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 o
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
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "P.G.Hamer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Herman Rubin wrote:
> >
> > > Those who voted for Bush
> >
> >
> >
> > > and so push harder on the punch to make sure that it
> > > went all the way through.
> >
> > A related interpretat
>
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,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"P.G.Hamer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> > Those who voted for Bush
>
>
>
> > and so push harder on the punch to make sure that it
> > went all the way through.
>
> A related interpretation is that those who were voting Gore
> were less c
Herman Rubin wrote:
> Those who voted for Bush
> and so push harder on the punch to make sure that it
> went all the way through.
A related interpretation is that those who were voting Gore
were less certain that they had chosen the right hole, so pressed
less positively. [They would have be
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
"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 car
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
> > count
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 where they are
<[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, Volusi
[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
[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
> >
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 fin
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 rathe
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 ther
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 accurat
By the way, Bob Kerrey (D-Neb) was quoted today in USAToday as saying that
the only way to have confidence in the outcome is to recount the votes (I
assume he means in FL, not the country) 50-100 times, then use the average.
reg
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Zaslavsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
59 matches
Mail list logo
