Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Night Trader who wrote (85263)	11/12/2000 9:23:13 PM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Martin - first of all - wouldn't the estimated standardeviation be about : Sqrt(n) which yields a standarddev of 23 for the Gore count. Of course this still would yield a high Z value. I think your underlying assumption is wrong. The newly found votes are statistically different then the entire population from the first count.I do not believe that this is due to manipulation - the new votes that from the second count are a different population - the 'confused' voters.

To: Night Trader who wrote (85263)	11/13/2000 1:20:50 AM
From: Richard Nehrboss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

martin, RE: assuming randomness (the sample is large enough to do this) is pretty much impossible (it produces a z value of 14) Sounds like we have a good statistician among us. Tell us more with links! This is the type of info that needs to get out. I suppose the argument is that it's not a Gaussian distribution, but I don't have a clue. Richard

To: Night Trader who wrote (85263)	11/13/2000 10:34:28 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

martin, i told you the dems would be partisan and find a way to bump their candidate. i was called cynical when discussing this. my point is that if it is REALITY it ain't cynical. i believe the data would support my position and you've pointed out it does. al gore lied when he said he didn't want this election on a technicality. he most definitely wants a win on a technicality - for gore not bush. this, imho, is an attempt to disregard the much of the state of florida and steal the election (i know 99.99% of people know what i meant by this. for that 0.01% of folks that don't, i do not mean in the legal sense, i mean in the moral, ethical sense - you don't need man made laws to steal).

To: Night Trader who wrote (85263)	11/13/2000 12:33:40 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

The recounts indeed favor Gore. If you believe that the recounting process systematically favors him, it begs the question of why the original counting process did not. A rational explanation is that an independent factor is at work. In fact, we know that rich (read: predominantly Republican) precincts can afford modern equipment which makes very few errors (on the order of a few per thousand). Less rich (read: predominantly Democrat) precincts use more antiquated machines that muck up a couple dozen per thousand. If you assume that the recounts are more accurate than the original count, and that both counts are unbiased, then this mere difference in machinery accounts for the difference without necessitating conspiracy or fraud. -mb