SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Selectric II who wrote (14967)11/12/2000 1:47:37 PM
From: HEP_Ronin  Read Replies (2) of 65232
 
Inaccurate vs unbiased.

I spent most of my life, (although not currently), studying physics. When you make a measurement accuracy refers to how close to that true number the measurement is. No measurement can be made without assigning an uncertainty to the number. What you want to guard against, however, (unless perhaps you happen to be a crooked politician) is a systematic, or biased error in the measurement.

Baker used the term accuracy when making the case for the superiority of machine counting over hand counting, when what he should have said was unbiassed. Machine counting evidently is not 100% accurate, but I believe that it is unbiased. It doesn't favor one candidate over the other. On the other-hand counting democratic districts using one method, and Republican districts using another is obviously biased unless one were to instruct the hand counters to only accept those ballots that a machine would accept, in which case you might as well use a machine.

Let's face it. The election was basically a tie. Anything could have tipped the balance in the direction of one candidate or the other. What if the election had been held a week sooner, or a week later? What if the networks hadn't projected a Gore win in Florida? What if the weather had been different? What if 1% more Republicans had voted, or 1% more Democrats?

The point is the election was a tie. A "coin" was flipped and George W. Bush came out the winner. The coin was then flipped a second time (machine recount) and G.W.B. came out the winner again. Then Daley and Co. decided to add a little weight to one side of the coin and flip it again. That's what is going on with the selective recount.

Maybe a hand-recount is more accurate if done properly. But that is not what is being accomplished here, nor is it the intent. The intent of Daley and Co. is to steal the White House for their boss Al.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News