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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vendit™ who wrote (2749)	11/20/2000 6:42:52 AM
From: Nandu	Respond to of 6710

A review of the original study, rather than the newspaper report is required to understand whether the study is significant. Being a little mathematically inclined myself, I can say this. It is well known that the measurement of a quantity that is the difference between two nearly equal quantities will have a large degree of error. Small relative variations in the votes for Bush or Gore can make a large difference in the final margin. So, the variation of 1500 in the Bush lead between the two counts doesn't surprise me much.

To: Vendit™ who wrote (2749)	11/20/2000 9:48:19 AM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Yes, I read that Vegas study and agreed with it. I guess the point is: Exactly what is the systemic error that would allow one or the other to gain disproportionately more than the other? TG

To: Vendit™ who wrote (2749)	11/20/2000 1:16:32 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Hi Vendit, What can you tell me about the Las Vegas Sun? It appears to be as credible a source of unbiased information as the Washington Times, a known partisan rag. The quote from Nevada Senator Harry Reid appears to have been pieced together from a rather longer and more considered presentation that Sen. Reid may have given. I've seen Sen. Reid on CNN for a half hour of back and forth with a Republican counterpart, and the tone of Sen. Reid's discussion there was 180 degrees different from how the Sun has characterized his positions. I think the Sun reporter, Radke is dissembling. After viewing the hysterical and overtly histrionic reaction of Republican operatives regarding the manual recount, it doesn't surprise me in the least. Regards, Ray

To: Vendit™ who wrote (2749)	11/20/2000 1:52:20 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

After thinking about this study, I'd like to clarify my answer a bit. First, you have to consider two different types of recount results, so the analysis can't be done statewide but must be done county by county. If the recount produces ADDITIONAL total votes (as occurred in those counties where the machine rejected ballots), then you would EXPECT those extra ballots to break in the same ratio as before.So if one candidate had 60,000 and the other had 40,000 but 1,000 new votes were lumped in, you would now expect the leader to have 60,600 and the trailer to have 40,400 or a net gain of 200 for the leader. This is consistent with what we saw in a number of counties where ADDITIONAL votes were found. If the recount produces no ADDITIONAL votes but merely a redistribution of the votes then you would EXPECT the net change to be positive for the TRAILING candidate. For example, if 60,000 were for Gore and 40,000 were for Bush, and 1,000 votes were in error then you would expect 60% of the error votes to be Gore votes that are truly Bush votes and 40% of the error votes to be Bush votes that are truly Gore votes, so Bush would gain 600 of Gore's previous votes while losing 400 of his previous votes...net gain of 200 for Bush and of course a net loss of 200 for Gore. Totals would then be 59,800 Gore and 40,200 Bush. In both of the examples above, departures that are statistically significant can be attributed to some external force, BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT FORCE IS without further inspection. The cancellation of gains with losses would only be expected in those counties where the vote distribution was nearly 50-50 to begin with. TG