To: Selectric II who wrote (14967 ) 11/12/2000 1:47:37 PM From: HEP_Ronin Read Replies (2) | Respond to Inaccurate vs unbiased.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.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.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. 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.
