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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (40770)	11/24/2000 4:13:55 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

<<IF machine counts are indeed inaccurate, the inaccuracies are in all likelihood distributed normally>> I certainly agree, but they have the burden of that albatross named "law" around their necks getting in the way of TRVTH!<G> Namely the case law in FLA and other states supporting the use of hand counts in closely disputed elections. It's difficult to PROVE bias just because the participants are partisan (hell, it'd be next to impossible to find someone who ISN'T partisan on this stuff by now, especially in the counties in question)....in any event, just more chaos for the market to chew on, albeit nominally bullish chaos (ie, pro-Shrub).

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (40770)	11/24/2000 6:24:36 PM
From: s-words	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

>> after all, the only reason for it is that Bore lost. had he not, no-one would be clamoring for a re-count<< Negative. Bush would be recounting if his statisticians were telling him that it was in his interest to do so. They know that because of the distribution of types of voting equipment and the error rates of each that their best chance is to try to shut down all manual recounts. >>IF machine counts are indeed inaccurate, the inaccuracies are in all likelihood distributed normally, i.e., they are not likely to favor one candidate over the other. hand counts are (obviously) different... In a large sample that favors one candidate, errors will approximate the vote ratios of the two candidates. That is, undervotes (missed votes) will penalize the leading candidate in that sampled area. Repeated machine recounts accomplish little, as the equipment evidently repeats the mistakes (undervotes). You could say that Bore is leading this thing. He's ahead in electoral votes until FLA is decided.