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 (4365)	12/2/2000 11:41:44 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 6710

Sauls may not even give Gore the Palm Beach votes. He admired Burton for being conscientious, but he was very, very interested in Burton's explanation that he did not vote to continue the manual recount but the wimmin-folk outvoted him. He took notes about that in an almost ostentatious manner, definitely with a flourish. As for my legal-eagle point of view on the statistician's blunder, my problem is that I didn't really understand anything the statistician was saying, so when he blundered it made it easy for me to dismiss everything he said. The lawyer who was doing the direct on the statistician did not do a good job of getting the statistician to explain in layman's terms, and the statistician was not well prepared, and not terribly impressive. It's not easy to get an expert witness to explain things to a layman - it takes real skill on the part of the lawyer and an expert witness who is well- coached OR experienced OR inspired. He seemed like a nice guy but out of his depth.

To: Steve K who wrote (4365)	12/3/2000 12:56:43 AM
From: TraderGreg	Respond to of 6710

I did mean this to be the null hypothesis: Ho: The undervote with optical scanners is identical to the undervote with punch card ballots You set up the null as the hypothesis that you believe you will be able to reject. When you reject, you can determine precisely your probability of making an error of this type, called Type I(probability of Rejecting the null when the null is true). When you are unable to reject, which is not quite the same as accepting but we call it accepting, the Type II error (probability of "accepting" the null when the null is false) is not readily determinable since that error depends on what the true state of the world is. I think Sauls has pretty much discounted this statistician's testimony...it is much easier to see black and white than gray. TG