Peter Lewycky wrote:
How many may have wanted to vote for Buchanan but got Gore instead?
Assuming that errors take place at the same rates, [rather than making
any unwarranted and invidious assumptions about relative intelligence of
Buchanan
and Gore voters], and assuming that (as
It was shown for few seconds on one of the channels. Possibly on CNN or
a Canadian TV station. Butterfly forms are in use in the US and not just
in Palm Beach. Warren Christopher called the form illegal.
Jerry Dallal wrote:
Peter Lewycky wrote:
The
butterfly ballot was used previously
Robert Chung wrote:
"Peter Lewycky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
How many may have wanted to vote for Buchanan but got Gore instead? I
don't have the all the stats at hand but Buchanan got something like
3000 votes. Is it the claim by
"Christopher J. Mecklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In regards to the point below:
(1) is a good point (the ballot looked simple to me but we should never
underestimate the ability of people to mess up anything)
but I don't buy "How many
"Simon, Steve, PhD" wrote:
The discussion on EDSTAT-L of the regression model by Greg Adams has been
very interesting. I would suggest that a Poisson regression model might be
more appropriate here than a simple linear regression model, because the
dependent variable (the number of votes
"Robert Chung" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
AOJO5.408511$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:AOJO5.408511$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Peter Lewycky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
(snip)
Oh come on. As statisticians, we can't and don't (usually) make
the people claim that since it had been publicized in the newspaper trial
printing of the ballot ... that it was assumed that al gore, who IS listed
second on the left ... that his vote would be the second hole ... so, it
seems like many just like automatons ... punched the second hole ...
It's tough to do any type of analysis on data that is incomplete or
incorrect. I'm sure we've all heard a lot of "raw data" stated as fact as
this issue has been debated. The 1996 number of 14800 disqualified ballots
quoted is one possible example. I have heard recently that this includes
both
"Robert J. MacG. Dawson" wrote:
Peter Lewycky wrote:
How many may have wanted to vote for Buchanan but got Gore instead?
and I responded:
Assuming that errors take place at the same rates, [rather than making
any unwarranted and invidious assumptions about relative
i think if you look at the graphs down the page at the url shown below ...
http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/palm-beach.pdf
it is pretty hard to argue that the data for buchanan this year is similar
to what it was in 1996 against dole ...
other counties showed even more votes for buchanan back then
At 03:51 PM 11/9/00 -0500, Reg Jordan wrote:
Did it cost Gore votes? Doesn't matter. Incompetence is not a defense.
on what basis can you conclude that the 19,000 invalidated ballots were due
to incompetence ... this seems to be your supposition ...
what if you saw a table that showed that
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
The Rep defense that there were 15,000 in 1996 and no one complained is very
weak. Isn't that evidence that there was a problem and maybe the Republican
Sec of State should have done something before 2000?
Why didn't anyone complain in 1996? Easy. It did not affect the outcome of
the race. I
These 19,000 "spoiled" ballots account for about 0.3% of the vote count.
Doesn't seem too high to me.
reg
- Original Message -
From: "dennis roberts" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Stats on Palm Beach votes
the people
At 11:45 AM 11/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
Well, let's look at that. In the '96 election, 14,000 or so ballots were
discarded as "spoiled" because of precisely the same problem. Given the
voter turnout in that election, 19,000 discards in this election is really
not different than that of '96.
did
If you've read any of Tom Clancy's books (especially Executive Orders or
The Bear and the Dragon) then you'll understand when I suggest we vote for
Jack Ryan as a write-in candidate.
-Original Message-
From: Bob Hayden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 8:01 AM
Bob Hayden wrote to the AP list: ==
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Hayden" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "AP Statistics" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:01 AM
Subject: [ap-stat] revote
After considering all the issues
As I understand
it, it was the same screwy arrangement in '96 -- except for the complaints from
the Democrats.The distribution of the double votes might be
statistically interesting ( I can sense that grant applications are being
completed as we speak), but the question remains: How can
Reg Jordan wrote on 11/10/00 10:51 AM:
It's interesting that no Republicans have claimed that the ballot was
misleading -- all the complaints seem to come from Democrats. Wouldn't the
"misleading, confusing" nature of the ballot apply equally across the
voting spectrum?
Bush was listed first
- Forwarded message from Reg Jordan -
None of these issues (double punching, voting for wrong candidate)
were raised at the polling place at the time of voting.
- End of forwarded message from Reg Jordan -
How do you know that? NPR interviewed one woman who realized she
might
This principle (that every eligible citizen has a right to have their
opinion heard and choice recorded) is missing something. First of all, it is
the obligation of each eligible citizen to acquaint himself with the
positions of each office-seeker, then exercise that right by voting on the
Yes, that's correct. You had to FOLLOW the arrow to the hole to punch, just
as stated in the instructions.
reg
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Bernhardt" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Edstat" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Palm Beach Stats
Reg Jordan
Here, Here!!
I have found the statistical discussions (particularly regarding sampling
design and the proper analytical technique) to be interesting and practical.
The discussion of the relative merits of the candidates is extraneous - we
hear this enough on CNN, CBS and our coffee break rooms.
On 10 Nov 2000 10:57:24 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reg Jordan)
wrote:
snip
And you're 100% correct, there cannot be a revote. Not with prior
knowledge of the outcomes in the rest of the country.
Hey, Reg, you are the one being addressed,
when someone says, Stop posting garbage here
: It's interesting that no Republicans have claimed that the ballot was =
: misleading -- all the complaints seem to come from Democrats. Wouldn't =
: the "misleading, confusing" nature of the ballot apply equally across =
: the voting spectrum?
Perhaps. If the cause of the confusion is more of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Rep defense that there were 15,000 in 1996 and no one complained is very
weak. Isn't that evidence that there was a problem and maybe the Republican
Sec of State should have done something before 2000?
The complaint from the Democrats was that there were 19000
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald Burrill) wrote:
#N.H. Public Radio aired part of an interview with a girl who, voting
#for the first time, realized (or suspected) afterward that she had
#mis-punched (or whatever) the ballot. She consulted one of the polling
#place
27 matches
Mail list logo
