On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:22:25 GMT, Peter Lewycky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 1) The ballot form was made public and widely distributed well in
> advance of the election. The print was larger than normal to assist the
> elderly. The ballot was a single page. If they had used a conventional
> list then it would've been two pages long (possibly with Gore on the
> second page). Both parties saw nothing wrong with the form and approved
> it's use.
- Lousy forms design isn't obvious to amateurs. This one could have
been improved by 90% by directing the eye with a few touches of
half-tone shading... maybe.
- I have no idea what particular precedents there are for having
re-votes. I know that I have not heard of many ever happening.
Pre-approval does undermine the "culpability" argument about
"unfairness."
> 2) How many people thought that they were voting for Buchanan when
> inadervtently they marked Gore? How many thought that they were marking
> Bush but punched the hole for another candidate?
Oh, sit down. The conclusion seems to be: nearly 19,000 voted
accidentally for Buchanan, based on the EXCESS seen for HIM; and
practically zero missed marking for Bush (the top box on the ballot
seems unambiguous, and that was Bush's).
How large is 19,000, as a *fraction*?
I doubt that the law puts it this way -- but --
When do ethical considerations tell us to require a re-vote? if the
ballot is bad enough to be mis-marked by 2% - 5% - 10% - 20% of all
voters? Or, of all voters intending one candidate?
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
