In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal) wrote:
> Of course, there surely must have been some legitimate votes missed in
> the machine recount. But there also surely must be some "votes" being
> counted that do not reflect the actual intent of the voter, and it
> seems quite likely that the number of such mis-assigned votes is
> greater for the manual recount of ambiguous ballots than for the
> machine count of ballots that seemed unambiguous to the machine. So
> you would *expect* the split to be closer to 50-50 if there is no
> bias. The question is whether the amount by which it has moved closer
> to 50-50 is suspiciously small. I think this can be answered only by
> some procedure that brings in additional information, such as an
> independent audit of a random sample of the recounted ballots.
If the untallied votes are dimpled but not perforated, I, at least,
would expect 2/3 of the dimples to be in Gore chads and only 1/3 in Bush
chads.
If approximately 2/3 of the tallied votes were for Gore, by what leap of
logic do you conclude that 1/2 of the untallied votes would have been
for Bush?
You would flunk my statistics course using such logic.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
