2000-11-20
I think part of the problem with the counting was that some people punched
two holes, and others punched between the holes. In case one, would the
machine reject the ballot, pick one of the holes over the other, or pick
both meaning two votes from one person? In the second case, would the
machine reject a ballot because it was punched where it wasn't suppose to,
or count it as belonging to the nearest spot where it should have been
punched. What about other flaws in the card itself, that could appear as a
hole?
Hand counting has to be very error prone. A person counting holes could
lose concentration and make oodles of mistakes.
I'm just surprised the whole voting procedure is not more computerized by
now. There would be a lot less mistakes. But, I'm sure some voters would
still claim they voted for the wrong guy.
A point that needs to be added about rational numbers, is that when the term
rational is applied to sizing, it means using numbers that are easy to work
with. A 1 L size of milk is rational, whereas 946 mL would be irrational.
Numbers that easily appear on measuring devices are rational. Such as 4 mm,
but not 4.2 mm. Because 4 mm can be easily read on a ruler and 4.2 can't.
4.2 mm might be rational to a machinist whose micrometer can resolve to
micrometre precision, but to a person using a simple metre stick, 4.2 would
be irrational, as its place would have to be guessed. Sizes are also
rational when they can be easily divided into smaller rational amounts.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Hooper, Bill and or Barbara
Sent: Monday, 2000-11-20 16:40
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
