Good evening again, Bill! This is obviously a response to a very large message. Those interested, can simply go back to the original source messages and get a fuller picture. However, to cut the chase, and get right to the point...
Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert... I previously wrote: > > 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. To which, you replied: > Give the expected ratings/ranking of each candidate and calculation of > the likelihood of a tie is a simple process from there. So. What is THAT supposed to mean exactly? Sounds to me like YOU might be speaking from the standpoint of the actual ballot counter here, and suggest the above all, in a way to come to a close approximation of vote counts -- that show a suspect character in a by itself! I hope you remember here, that I also alluded to vote count irregularities that suggest, as Lowell himself conceded, is a shot at the Idaho State Lottery! I lost the election, and didn't expect to win anyway. But the point herein is how the votes were finally reported, and perhaps the chance of a lifetime of such a thing happening in only two Idaho counties! > 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. Now you've lost me entirely here, Bill. Even Lowell suggested such odds are equivalent to winning the Lottery, and you suggest there might be some meagre explaination on why such might be expected! Even Lowell at least had the decency to admit the odds of such a vote count really happening, on two fronts are next to impossible! Lowell's explanation however was short sighted and irrelevant as well, he basically said, Congratulations, you won the lottery! Well, in fact I lost the election. The Lottery thing wasn't really a part of my goals in this election -- fair and honest reporting of voting results were my goal. As a Third Party candidate in this mix, I could hardly call for a vote re-count, although the voting pattern here ought to be suspect on the part of the two major party candidates concerned and demand a recourt, primarily in Bonner County, if nothing else. > The larger the "sample size" the less likely a tie is to happen. Well, in rural northern Idaho, Bonner County is signficant in terms of the number of votes cast. You explanation here really doesn't give a lot of detail into just 'how large' the size of the sample has to be. But the probabilities of an exact tie with 24,000 plus votes cast, is really bordering on the absurd. Yea, it could happen as a 'possibility', but probably not as a probability in this election. Don't get me wrong here. I wanted Eric Anderson to win. I like the man. He is genuinely trying to be a man of principle, and that's hard to find these days in the world of politics. It was already for forgone conclusion that I had no chance of winning, so I am not trying to contest the outcome of this race exactly, accept perhaps to find a way to describe the strange numbers that were reported by the two counties involved. Lowell might like this a lot. The truth is, this is most likely the ONLY time in Idaho politics than an election has come down with such suspect and questionable details. Lowell my suggest something, as he has already done, CONGRATULATIONS! You won the lottery! Again, I didn't win at all. And I already knew that winning in this race was never an option anyway. I believe for Libertarians, party of entering such races is accountability for the outcome of the race. In this case, there are a lot of questions that ought to be raised certainly. I don't believe in winning lotteries. I do believe that the only chance for Liberty to survive very much longer depends entirely upon principled candidates that often lose the race! Politics largely brought us all into the present disaster of living in a controlled police state, and politics, and good principled politicians, might have a big outcome into whether that condition continues to exist in this country, or whether or not this condition can or will be reversed. Some interject here the idea of 'Statesmen' instead of 'Politicians'. I agree with that, except for the sake of argument, that even 'Statesmen' are also in a real sense, 'Politicians' anyway. I choose here not to enter into the rest of your arguments, as you posted them, only suggesting that we need more accountability, particularly when elections are decided by 'lottery expectations' in the cumulative result. Closing. It's hard to believe in honesty these days. I'm not a lottery winner in this case, and I beg the question admittedly. The two major powers in this election were the forces of the two major parties, those supporting Steve Elgar (Democrat) and Eric Anderson (Republican). Thousands or dollars were 'donated' to Steve Elgar, and he LOST! A lot of that had to do with 'alarm bells' going off, and tons of money in radio spot ads were being dumped into this campaign by the GOP! I saw all of that up and up close in the last week or so, leading up to the election. So, the real outcome of this election in terms of stark numbers, is in my judgement, certain suspect. Perhaps, even those in the 'voting counting process'. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
