Can someone guide me in the various possibilities regarding some
preliminary modeling for a hypothetical election, to be held on the
basis of genealogy based adult franchise. Has someone done any work on
this type of problem. Would it be possible to have such a model run on
a spread-sheet such as
Considering the amount of traffic here last year at this time and
the expression that the discussion should be archived to see
whether some useful teaching material could be found, I'm vaguely
surprised that no one has brought up the media consortium's
results. I've only read summaries of their fi
I'd like to model some past voter data to help
assess voter trends (predict election outcomes ?)
and preferences.
Does anyone have any references ? Texts and
websites would be approciated.
Is most of this done using some form of logistic
regression ?
Al Barron
Metuche
marize what I think
>were the statistical concepts brought to our attention by this election.
>Validity: will a machine recount or a human recount provide a "better"
>number of the actual vote totals? Better in what sense?
Some of these concerns could also be
Reliability: Inter-r
ate was divided into two time zones and it
> was announced the election for all intents and purposes was "over,"
> would you stand in line to vote? In particular, if you were a first
< snip, rest >
Well, that is the "minor question" that I pointed to. With its
"J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I would be interested in research showing voter intentions in those
> western counties AFTER learning the election had been already called.
> It would be fasci
At 02:34 PM 1/6/01 +, J. Williams wrote:
>
>The entire nation is not what I talked about in my post. I'm
>referring to voters in an individual state which is the same problem
>writ small. Voters in the panhandle region of Florida were confronted
>with electronic media
At 09:42 PM 1/5/01 -0800, Jake wrote:
>This is silly. Why inconvenience the voters when a news blackout until ALL the
>polls are closed will do the trick? The overzealousness of the press does not
>trump the people's right to vote.
i totally agree ... but, in a democracy with a free press, how do
On 5 Jan 2001 17:32:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>this is the perennial issue in national elections about ... if it looks
>like the election is sewn up from the east and south ... then what is to
>motivate those in the napa valley to leave their vinyards and hea
he perennial issue in national elections about ... if it looks
> like the election is sewn up from the east and south ... then what is to
> motivate those in the napa valley to leave their vinyards and head for the
> polls? i do think there are some data that roughly show that voter
this is the perennial issue in national elections about ... if it looks
like the election is sewn up from the east and south ... then what is to
motivate those in the napa valley to leave their vinyards and head for the
polls? i do think there are some data that roughly show that voter turnout
is
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 16:56:03 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>What is your corollary issue? I don't see that you name one ... I
It is simple. If your state was divided into two time zones and it
was announced the election for all intents and purposes was &qu
just be helpful
to have statistics to confirm my guess. I think that a very large
majority of the undervotes (and probably, the overvotes) were
cast by first-time voters. I know that I read comments about
how many first-time voters there were, in various places -
- Were these reports totally su
On 5 Jan 2001 08:15:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon, Steve, PhD)
wrote:
>Data quality: What caused the two premature calls for Florida in the media
>on election night? Are exit polls a useful source of information?
>
>Data quality again: What is the impact of having different s
>In article <E7AC96207335D411B1E7009027FC2849F87098@EXCHANGE2>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon, Steve, PhD) wrote:
[A list of statistical issues raised by the Fl election]
>If there were other important statistical issues raised by this
>election, let me know so I can add to
marize what I think
were the statistical concepts brought to our attention by this election.
Outlier detection: was the number of votes in Palm Beach County for Buchanan
unusual. If so, by how much?
Outlier detection again: Was the rates of undervoting and double voting in
Palm Beach county unusually h
Thank you, Dennis, for making an effort to provide access to
this information. I also look forward to seeing what the
CHANCE project makes of this issue.
As Dennis pointed out in an earlier mail, many of the issues were
not statistical. A better term is perhaps "methodological", but
so be it
stical (perhaps methodological more broadly defined) issues that we
> might glean from the recent election results in florida.
>
> at http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/flaelection.htm
>
>
> THE GOAL OF ALL OF THIS IS TO SEE IF WE CAN SIFT SOME METHODOLOGICAL
ISSUE
bob hayden at plymouth state college has been "collecting" emails over some
period of time that have some bearing, either real or imagined, on
statistical (perhaps methodological more broadly defined) issues that we
might glean from the recent election results in florida. i sugges
Re the discussion of statistical issues in the election on EdStat-L:
I saved all the ones that I thought has some statistical merit to a
single file. If anyone wants it I could insert the whole thing into
one email message. (I thought I might use this in my Math. for
Humanities class but it
tions."
December 22, 2000
Web posted at: 5:35 a.m. EST (1035 GMT)
(CNN) -- An internal investigation by the polling organization that
incorrectly said Al Gore won the state of Florida on election night
concluded that its projections were plagued by errors all night long.
But the confidential
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
(which may or may not be extreme).
However, non-PR systems tend to favour local/regional parties which are
sometimes strongly nationalist. Also, extreme right-wing parties tend to
decline after election (as they usually can't deliver on their rhetoric). (The
German system has a 5% threshold for natio
"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
ouldn't touch with a barge pole. A mixture of
> voting for candidates and voting for a party list would be bettter.
[I think
> that a lot of people from both main parties got some satisfaction from
> Prtilllo's non-election.]
>
> On the other hand it would be nice to be enf
lot of people from both main parties got some satisfaction from
Prtilllo's non-election.]
On the other hand it would be nice to be enfranchised in some sense. The
outcome of the election in my constituency is essentially pre-ordained by
the
at minority parties such as the Liberal Democrats (typically
> >15-25% in polls) are disenfranchised by the first-pass-the-post General
> >election system (5-8% in terms of parliamentary seats). However, this is the
> >same FPTP system in the US elections (excluding the Electoral
ch as the Liberal Democrats (typically
>> 15-25% in polls) are disenfranchised by the first-pass-the-post General
>> election system (5-8% in terms of parliamentary seats). However, this is the
>> same FPTP system in the US elections (excluding the Electoral College) which
>>
British democracy has
>> greatly eroded the rights the people won in the Bill of
>> Rights and the Petition of Right. Democracy is two wolves
>> and a sheep deciding the dinner menu.
>It is true that minority parties such as the Liberal Democrats (typically
>15-25% in poll
people won in the Bill of
> > Rights and the Petition of Right. Democracy is two wolves
> > and a sheep deciding the dinner menu.
>
> It is true that minority parties such as the Liberal Democrats (typically
> 15-25% in polls) are disenfranchised by the first-pass-the-post Gener
and the Petition of Right. Democracy is two wolves
> and a sheep deciding the dinner menu.
It is true that minority parties such as the Liberal Democrats (typically
15-25% in polls) are disenfranchised by the first-pass-the-post General
election system (5-8% in terms of parliamentary seats). However,
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
>>>
(Not
>to mention a physical one!)
This particular type of voting machine is one of the new
types, replacing the old electromechanical counters, which
did not allow overvoting. The problem with a paper ballot
is that, in this last election, I was voting for people to
fill about 20 positions, as well
L PROTECTED]">news:8ut1je$aef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
..
>Investment tip. "Shoup" is a company that makes electronic and
>op-scan voting equipment. Homepage claims 100% accuracy.
>Does the nation use about 1 voting machine per 100? 200? 500? voters?
>How many will be rep
"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
ists in trying to play the guitar
with long fingernails? Or my Uncle, the college professor
who cannot sip a spoonful of soup without spilling the
whole thing?
Or is it all illiteracy, stupidity, and unfitness?
Well?
Frankly at this point I don't give a damn which way it goes.
I
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
On 16 Nov 2000 20:23:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Warren Sarle) wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hayden) writes:
> > ... Maybe we should just agree that if the margin is less than
> > 0.5% on election night then we honestly say it&#x
"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 article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hayden) writes:
> ... Maybe we should just agree that if the margin is less than
> 0.5% on election night then we honestly say it's too close to call
That doesn't help. There could still be disputes about whether
th
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
Does anyone know what the "gold standard" is for determining error
rates for the machine counts? Thanks.
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
testable
ones.
I don't have great faith in politicians. I have my doubts about how
honest a statewide recount would be, when you might not have
politicians and media staring over the shoulders at every counting
station. But in the media I have seen, there has been very little
suggestion of f
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
Meanwhile, here in Canada, an Internet sampling story is in the news.
Mr. Stockwell Day is the leader of the rather-right-wing Alliance party
(which a few months ago changed its name to the "Canadian Regional
Alliance" Party, then changed it again hurriedly when somebody noticed
the acron
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
e are not looking at those.
>
>3.
>
>Everyone on this list knows that polls have a margin of error, but
>this election reminds us that elections have a margin of error, too.
>The Florida election is TOO CLOSE TO CALL. By thinking that there
>really IS a right answer to who won,
have a margin of error, but
this election reminds us that elections have a margin of error, too.
The Florida election is TOO CLOSE TO CALL. By thinking that there
really IS a right answer to who won, we prolong the process, tempt the
candidates to even more sqabbling, leave the "losing&
"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
lated with voting patterns. Each of these effects may
> be quite subtle, but then the differences are pretty small,
> too.
What differences are small? Actually some contrasts are pretty big,
when you get the narrow focus.
Investment tip. "Shoup" is a company that makes electron
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <001801c04d82$38529f80$70690e3f@wards>,
>> Joe Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Does anyone know WHY so many states DON'T DO IT THIS WAY?
>>>Perhaps the Political Scie
In article <8ut1je$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
.html
***
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Creighton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "AP Statistics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 8:11 AM
Subject: [ap-stat] RE: election pr
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
Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In article <001801c04d82$38529f80$70690e3f@wards>,
> Joe Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Does anyone know WHY so many states DON'T DO IT THIS WAY?
>>Perhaps the Political Science/History folks can comment.
>
> The principal reason is that the two maj
In article <001801c04d82$38529f80$70690e3f@wards>,
Joe Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does anyone know WHY so many states DON'T DO IT THIS WAY?
>Perhaps the Political Science/History folks can comment.
The principal reason is that the two major parties want
to keep their position AS PARTIES. I
D]>
> To: "AP Statistics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 8:11 AM
> Subject: [ap-stat] RE: election proposal
>
>
> > People are listening! This is exactly how Nebraska
> and Maine vote, as we
> speak.
> >
> &
Joe Ward wrote:
>
> Does anyone know WHY so many states DON'T DO IT THIS WAY?
> Perhaps the Political Science/History folks can comment.
It maximizes a state's impact and forces candidates to campaign
harder for each state. You might not work as hard with a reasonably
sure half of the electors a
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
.html
***
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Creighton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "AP Statistics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 8:11 AM
Subject: [ap-stat] RE: election pr
arch, said Diana C. Mutz, a professor of political science at Ohio
> State University, scientists will repeat a process multiple times and
> choose a number somewhere in the middle of their data as most likely to
> reflect the truth. But, she and others said, multiple recounts are
> probably
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: NY Times on "statisticians' view" of election
> The following might be interest for those following press coverage of the
> possible role of statistics in this dispute. (The
s are
probably not desirable in the presidential election because they would
add to the delay and uncertainty, not to say the bickering. Whoever was
losing could argue for one more recount.
Even if it were just a research question, Professor Mutz was not sure how
many counts would be needed to make he
94 matches
Mail list logo
