On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 20:15 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Good evening Lowell!
>
> I'm dealing with this issue here on the "Newsnet" side, and don't
> know for sure if it will really make it's way across, but I hope
> it will!
>
> Lowell C. Savage wrote to Steve Thompson...
>
> > I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with you on a couple of points. First, I
> > suspect that you are making a lot more out of Cheney's remarks that they
> > deserve. It was certainly a poor choice of words, but at the same time,
> > fewer candidates makes it a lot easier to design, print and tally ballots
> > and a lot easier to deal with security for candidates and set up debates and
> > all kinds of other things.
>
> So? What's the problem for YOU, dealing with conflicts in shere
> numbers in terms of ballots cast? I'm certainly not ready to
> make a 'big deal' over it here in Idaho, however, it still is a
> hell'a long shot, isn't it?
> Imagine, over 12,000 votes cast, and suddenly there is an 'exact
> tie' vote between Steve Elgar and Steve Anderson! Exactly, an
> exact tie!? Hoexactly do probabilities of such a thing happen?
> You count the odds of THAT happening! Talley the probable result
> and send 'em on to me, I'm interested.
>
> > Second. If the "public airwaves" belong to "the people," then why doesn't
> > anything else belong to "the people"?
>
> I really don't want to get into all of that. I think Steve raised
> some interesting questions, and, I have tried to raise other
> questions into certain probabilities of how things happened the
> way that they were reported.
>
> Hey!'m the Libertarian Party's candidate, and it was expected
> that I would, as a result lose!
>
> BUT! On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 20:15 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Good evening Lowell!
>
> I'm dealing with this issue here on the "Newsnet" side, and don't
> know for sure if it will really make it's way across, but I hope
> it will!
>
> Lowell C. Savage wrote to Steve Thompson...
>
> > I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with you on a couple of points. First, I
> > suspect that you are making a lot more out of Cheney's remarks that they
> > deserve. It was certainly a poor choice of words, but at the same time,
> > fewer candidates makes it a lot easier to design, print and tally ballots
> > and a lot easier to deal with security for candidates and set up debates and
> > all kinds of other things.
>
> So? What's the problem for YOU, dealing with conflicts in shere
> numbers in terms of ballots cast? I'm certainly not ready to
> make a 'big deal' over it here in Idaho, however, it still is a
> hell'a long shot, isn't it?
> Imagine, over 12,000 votes cast, and suddenly there is an 'exact
> tie' vote between Steve Elgar and Steve Anderson! Exactly, an
> exact tie!? Hoexactly do probabilities of such a thing happen?
> You count the odds of THAT happening! Talley the probable result
> and send 'em on to me, I'm interested.
Give the expected ratings/ranking of each candidate and calculation of
the likelihood of a tie is a simple process from there.
The odds or probability of a tie happening between is dead even if the
candidates are ranked equally. Without using any ranking or expectation,
or any other external data, the odds or probability is dead even a tie
will result form an even number of ballots.
The larger the "sample size" the less likely a tie is to happen.
If you have 12,000 people, and assume no predisposition (IOW each voter
is randomly selecting between the two) than the chances of a tie are
actually very high. That's because the odds of a voter choosing A are
the same as a voter choosing B: 1 in 2. IIRC, to determine the
probability of a tie between two people in a two-way election you start
by assume a tie, then modify base don other factors.
It's that predisposition combined with other factors that are needed to
determine the probability of a tie. I believe that adding candidates
above 2 increase the odds of a tie, particularly if the "additional"
options are assumed to shrink the pie by drawing away "partial
supporters". Essentially they decrease the sample size under that
scenario.
An in reality, IIRC, there are something like dozens to hundreds of ties
each even numbered election year. Seems I hear about a tie in Idaho at
least every other year. Usually it goes to a coin toss.
>
> How did the overall results of a direct "tie" in Bonner County,
> with over 12,000 votes cast, between my two opponents, fit into
> any of this? I guess that's a question I will never get an
> answer to, since probabilities of such amount to the impossible!
> How is it numerically possible for a dead tie to result in over
> 12,000 votes cast>
>
> I'll admit. It might be possible. However, that are the real
> odds for such happeing? You might as well win the lotery!
It is more than possible. Indeed, the odds are actually higher than
winning the lottery. Given the general position of the LP, I'd say that
adding an LPer to the ballot increases the odds, all else being equal.
If we assume that the LP holds roughly the same appeal on different
grounds to voters who would otherwise vote for one or the other of the
big two, then we simply reduce the size of the pool by the number that
the LP candidate appeals to. Any reduction of the pool that ends in an
even number increases the probability of a tie.
If we assume a 1% ballot problem issue (voter error, hanging chad,
machine error, etc.), and that such events are non-biased, we see a
reduction in ballots of 1,200 further increasing the odds of a tie.
Mathematically, a third party, it seems to me, would increase the odds
of a tie, as it provides a mechanism to make odd vote tallies even. Each
time you add a candidate, you increase the odds of a tie by providing
more ways of dividing the total counted vote evenly.
12000 / 2 = 6000
12000 = 3 = 4000
12003 / 3 = 4001
That shows us that by adding a third candidate, odd numbers of ballots
cast can still produce a tie. Thus, Frank, by adding yourself to the
ballot you increased the likelihood/probability of a tie.
But to the higher question regarding ballot/election domination as a
problem. If we turn to modern physics, we see it is unavoidable. It's
basically a small world system. Much like the "rich/poor gap" issue, it
is simply unavoidable. Small world networks, social networks, etc. all
play a dominant role. It's much like an ecology. Sure, various
regulations and "laws" increase the power position of certain
players/parties but these arise as a result of the underlying mechanics.
It's actually a very fascinating field of study that could indeed, and
likely will have profound implications for electioneering. It's not only
explanatory but predictive.
Cheers,
Bill
--
Random Fortune of the moment:
The less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag.
-- Kin Hubbard
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
