I agree with Scott's observation (below) that our Florida election problems
can be viewed as a signal-to-noise ratio problem. In my earlier suggestion
that there is ALWAYS some error in ANY measurement or count, that error
would be the noise in Scott's analysis, while the real difference in total
votes between candidates is the signal we are trying to see. If you can't
reliably see the signal for the noise, call it a tie.
I do quibble with Scott, however, over the characterization of the
politicians as "power hungry". In any contest there are winners and losers
and it is almost always more fun to win. One doesn't have to be power hungry
to want to win. But his statement, that BOTH sides are trying to "interpret"
the results in their own favor is right on the mark (emphasis on "BOTH").
Regards,
Bill Hooper
embarrassed Floridian
> From: "Scott Clauss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [USMA:9270] Re: US metric and integers
>
> 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.
