In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Thom Baguley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I admit to being confused by Radford's analysis. Radford, is your point that
>if there are a large proportion of "empty/no vote" ballots then we would
>expect them to be decided close to 50:50 and hence shift the balance from
>30:70? I think this depends on the counting procedure. If I were in charge I'd
>have a "no vote" category where all "I'm not sure" ballots would be placed. If
>this happened, assuming no bias we'd expect the original 30:70 ratio or
>thereabouts (as observed).
I assume that they do have a "no vote" category. But one wouldn't
expect that all real "no votes" get put in that category. Some must
get counted as votes. If the procedure is unbiased, the ballots that
are actually "no votes", but that are counted as votes should split
equally. Plus, there are the ballots that actually were meant as
votes, but which are misassigned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radford M. Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Statistics and Dept. of Computer Science [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Toronto http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~radford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
