Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
>
> Eric Scharin wrote:
>
> >
> > The discussions I've heard during the media coverage of this all have a
> > disconcertingly political tinge to them. There seems to be a lack of debate
> > based on principle. The principle I'm referring to the right of every
> > eligible citizen to have their opinion heard and choice recorded. If the
> > voting system in place in Palm Beach hampered this fair process, then it
> > needs to be investigated in an even-handed way, considering all of the data
> > available.
>
> Correct; however, it must be remembered that the results of this
> particular election were highly unusual. In the absence of perfect
> systems the correct criterion for a good imperfect system is that it
> works with high probability; I do not see that the events of the last
> few days constitute evidence that the existing American system doesn't
> do so.
I'd agree that is one crterion. However, a second criterion is that it stands
up well to comparison with other voting/counting systems. The inconsistencies,
error rates etc., apparent biases and so on compare poorly relative to
procedures in other Western democracies (UK, Germany and so on). (This might
not be true in all states, but certainly seems true in Florida).
I was also struck by the poll result in Florida newspaper reporting that most
Floridians thought the election was fair. Most was less than 2/3 in that case.
I would be horrified if 1/3 of the electorate in an English election thought
the election might be unfair. (I'd hope for 99% plus percent thinking it fair).
Thom
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
