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: Steve K who wrote (4352)	12/2/2000 11:08:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I don't know about Judge Sauls, but I didn't really understand the statistician's testimony, myself, even without the gaffe about 1998. If you flip a coin eight times and it comes up heads eight times, what is the FACTUAL significance, other than the fact that it's statistically unusual? Have you proved anything about the coin? The person flipping the coin? The environment in which the coin was flipped? Apparently the statistician established a statistical anomaly, but he didn't make any case on causation, himself, and he didn't help the demographer's case on causation because the demographer's case was garbage. So what is the significance of the statistical anomaly? And more importantly, why should the statistical anomaly make Judge Sauls want to order a recount? Any lawyer who puts an expert witness who testifies that he hasn't tested his hypothesis but would like to, if only he had time, should be ashamed. Well, who knows? Maybe Gore's lawyers are coasting because the fix is in and they don't have to worry.

To: Steve K who wrote (4352)	12/2/2000 11:10:40 PM
From: TraderGreg	Respond to of 6710

<<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?>> Given the screwup of the irrelevant '98 ballot issue analysis, there is nothing Nicholas could do to redeem himself....you only get one chance to make a great first impression. Sauls may be a judge but he's still human. TG