What you have in Florida, New Mexico, and few other states is a classic
example of S/N ~ 1. In analytical chemstry we don't usually say we can see
something unless the signal to noise ratio is > 2.5 or 3.0. So what you
have in Florida is a bunch of power hungry types trying to interpret the
noise to their favor. The attention is on Florida, as compared to NM,
because it has the most electoral votes to gain of the tight states, and
there was the issue of the West Palm Beach ballot format confusion that may
have cost Gore somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000+ votes, which would
have put his win way above the noise.
Each recount has yielded a different result. Maybe they should treat this
statistically. Do as many recounts as they can figure out how to do and
then if neither candidate is ahead by 3.0 x noise of all the counts, declare
the state a tie. I suspect this is why other countries have run off
elections.
Scott C
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Hooper, Bill and or Barbara
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 1:40 PM
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:9266] Re: US metric and integers
>
>
> Leonardo wrote:
> > Please do not flame me: But i have noted in the last two weeks
> > that in some [SE] parts of US people not only have problems with
> > fractions and decimals, but with comparing Natural Numbers too !
>
> Of course, he is correct. But it is nothing more than evidence of
> the basic
> fact of measurment (INCLUDING counting), that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make ANY
> measurement to absoultely perfect precision. There is ALWAYS some error.
>
> It is true that integers (whole numbers) are easier to count than rational
> numbers (numbers that include fractional parts to an indefinite number of
> decimal palces). But it is nonetheless true that an EXACTLY
> correct count is
> impossible.
>
> Some of our problems here in the southeastern US (Florida, where I am) is
> the failure of most people to realize that fact. One may get different
> results with a hand count than with a machine count, but one also will get
> different answers with two consecutive machine counts (we did
> that) and one
> would also get different answers with two different hand counts.
>
> The question that should be asked is "which method is likely to be more
> reliable", rather than "which method is exactly correct". I believe the
> machine counts are more reliable and should be used unless there is
> verifiable evidence of machine malfunction. (And, no, I am not a supporter
> of Mr. Bush. I voted for Mr. Gore.)
>
> Too many people in the US (and elsewhere?) think that we should be able to
> come up with the exact figure. With a dozen eggs I think that can be done
> all but 1 in a million time. With 6 million ballots, I don't
> believe that is
> possible even if counted a million times. (And even if one of the
> counts WAS
> perfectly correct, as known only by God, how would we mortals know which
> one?)
>
> To all our friends in the rest of the world, be assured that the mood here
> in the US is "We don't care who wins, just get this thing
> settled." All but
> the most radical partisans on both sides are ready to recognize
> and support
> whichever candidate is eventually declared the winner.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Hooper
> embarrassed Floridian
>
