On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:51:22 GMT, Ron Hardin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>``Reasonable probability'' in ordinary use means something pretty near one.
Not when I use it. I would say I would say if someone was "guilty
beyond reasonable doubt" then that is equivalent to there not being a
"reasonable
Gene Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is a very interesting analysis on Bruce Hansen's U. Wisconsin web
>page describing the yield and error rates in the analysis of undervotes:
>http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~bhansen/vote/vote.html
>The link is to his web page with several articles, the lea
Gene Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is a very interesting analysis on Bruce Hansen's U. Wisconsin web
>page describing the yield and error rates in the analysis of undervotes:
>http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~bhansen/vote/vote.html
>The link is to his web page with several articles, the lea
Political polemics have little to do with
statistics and less to do with mathematics. I
suggest, at the least, that posters on this thread
stop posting to stat.math.
Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> On 4 Dec 2000 14:28:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal)
> wrote:
>
> < snip, some detail >
> > Let me
Gene Gallagher wrote:
> exist for obtaining these estimates and propagating the error. The CNN
> article cites Peyton Young's 1 in 3 odds of a Gore victory, but even
> Judge Sauls would have to conclude that 1 in 3 is a "reasonable
> probability."
``Reasonable probability'' in ordinary use mean
> < ... Here is a bit more of Neal's curious fantasizing, with little
>apparent connection to known processes ... >
>> It would be interesting to know whether the recount is looking at
>> ballots selected by some criterion that doesn't relate to whether it
>> seemed like it might be a vote for B
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'd disagree with the "some must get counted as votes" point. Some
may, but it
> would depend on people's capacity to discriminate between them. If d'
is good
> then few votes should be missassigned.
> Thom
There is a very interesting an
On 4 Dec 2000 14:28:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal)
wrote:
< snip, some detail >
> Let me try one more time:
>
> 1) A certain number of ballots will have been filled out by people
> who HAD NO INTENTION OF VOTING FOR PRESIDENT. In a manual recount,
> a certain number of th
In article <90hi95$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Having seen the pictures of the "butterfly" ballot, there
>are many other candidates as well. Not all counties used
>that particular one, but they all have many candidates.
All counties within the state will have t
ON the other hand, if we put the florida situation in the context of the
overall election ... and see that al gore won ONLY about 1/4 of the states
(and you have to win states to win the electoral college) ... and, given
the prosperity of the country and the fact that he was an incumbent (in a
Radford Neal wrote:
> 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 sp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It is unfortunate that Florida has such convoluted and contradictory
> election laws, which
> have allowed the Bush campaign to block the complete statewide recount
> that is needed to determine the Florida winner.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what your goals are.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Radford Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 wo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert J. MacG. Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think what Radford Neal is saying is that *some* dimpled ballots were
>dimpled by a process other than an attempt to vote, and these will
>divide 50-50. This should be easily determined by comparing the nu
Gene Gallagher wrote:
> The full [Hengartner} transcript is available on the Washington Post
> web site.
Where? I tried their search engine and found some news stories but
no transcript.
Thanks!
=
Instructions for joining and
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> For those who may at some time be called upon to
> testify on statistical matters, it would be
> worthwhile to find a way to view Hengartner's
> testimony. It was one of the better such that I
> have seen -- for in
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 fr
I think what Radford Neal is saying is that *some* dimpled ballots were
dimpled by a process other than an attempt to vote, and these will
divide 50-50. This should be easily determined by comparing the number
of dimples at null locations on the card with the number that are
interpretable
Responding to my posting below:
>> I concluded that one would expect the division to be *closer* to
>> 1/2 each than for the clearly marked ballots. If you mix a certain
>> number of valid ballots with 1/3 - 2/3 proportions with another group
>> of invalid ballots, in which votes have been
Virgil wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal) wrote:
>
> > >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?
> >
> > I didn't. If you actually
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal) wrote:
> >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?
>
> I didn't. If you actually read the passage you quoted,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal) wrote:
>>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 ref
>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
>>
> 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?
The GOP lawyers in their cross of the voting expert argued that people
may have dimpled their chads by handling the ballots, e.g., runnin
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 q
In article <90dpba$47r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gene Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hengartner's simple analysis shows that after the machine recount in
>Broward County, the percentage of Bush to Gore votes was 31% to 69%.
>The additional votes, after the hand recount and assignment of some
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hasty writing -- I was responding to the cited
> post. More than two questions were considered by
> Hengartner -- he had charts indicating the
> possible effects of recounting Dade County were it
> to behave as did the othe
Hasty writing -- I was responding to the cited
post. More than two questions were considered by
Hengartner -- he had charts indicating the
possible effects of recounting Dade County were it
to behave as did the other recounted counties.
Bob Wheeler wrote:
>
> There were two statistical questions
There were two statistical questions considered by
Nicholas Hengartner of Yale. For one, his
conclusions erred because he assumed the wrong
form for the ballot. For the second, he showed
that the undervote ratio between optical scanned
ballots and punched cards was for practical
purposes independe
At today's Leon County trial involving a manual recount, the statistical
expert testified that the undervote in Florida counties that use punch
cards is significantly greater than in counties that use scan cards.
Part of the crossexamination ignored this conclusion and focused on side
comments wri
30 matches
Mail list logo
