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 considering
>them, which is what
>> is so disturbing.
>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, Volusia was only 53% Gore and 45% Bush.
>Since when do chads play favorites, or is this entirely realistic
>is one were to model chad failure as a Poisson process?
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,
and in particular aware of what the punch card devices are
doing, and so push harder on the punch to make sure that it
went all the way through. A lesser effect (one person on
this group has stated that he does it, and I do it, but
none of my colleagues I have asked does) check their punched
ballots; those would be among the more educated ones.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
