In article <90k3vl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >AFAIK there is general agreement that unbiased humans are better at
> >identifying the difference between unpunched holes and imperfectly
> >punched holes than current counting machines -- which after all were
> >only designed to distinguish between unpunched and perfectly punched
> >holes.
>
> UNBIASED humans, yes. There is considerable evidence of bias.
>
> Some of this bias is inadvertent, the type of observer bias
> found in many experimental situations in other fields. This
> is especially the case if it is not merely a piece of hanging
> chad, but a dimple. It also occurs if there is a question
> of multiple voting for an office.
Both the United Kingdom and Germany use the old fashioned
piece-of-paper-take-a-pencil-mark-your-candidate method, and the papers
are always handcounted.
I don't think there is ever any question about "voter intention" unless a
voter deliberately chooses to make his ballot paper undecidable. Just
because a system is oldfashioned doesn't mean it can't be better anyway.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
