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: Ilaine who wrote (4345)	12/2/2000 10:45:50 PM
From: Steve K	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Since the senatorial and gubernatorial races in 1998 were NOT on different rows, what explains the difference in undervotes? It has to be something he didn't consider. I agree that he got blown out of the water for not checking the actual configuration of the 1998 ballots before drawing his conclusions (wonder how is tenure review will go assuming that his department will even put him up for tenure). My question to you really concerns with how the judge will view anything else the statistician said in light of his faulty assessment of the 1998 election. Some of the charts that the statistician showed at the beginning of his presentation indicated that the undervote rate for president in the 2000 election was ~0.8% for optical systems and ~1.5% for punch card systems. Do you think that the judge will ignore the apparent discrepancy in view of the witness being partially discredited? Thanks, Steve edit: I agree that machine "Wear and tear" wasn't the cause of the discrepancy between optical and punch card ballots.