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: bwanadon who wrote (5134)	12/7/2000 5:36:30 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I believe that the likelihood of an error IF a clean punch through has been made is essentially zero,i.e, the odds that the machine recorded the vote for the WRONG candidate. The differences between the machine vote count the first time and the second time is another issue. In fact, if you recall, when ballots were machine counted the second time, some of the ones with hanging chads were then recorded properly because the chad broke off. IF you hand count every ballot to look for NEW votes, they will break in the same ratio as the candidates won votes in that county/precinct. IF you hand count every ballot to look for INCORRECT vote allocations, each candidate will LOSE votes in the same ratio as the candidate won votes in that county/precinct. As I said, I would think this event would occur with extreme rarity for machine tabulations. TG

To: bwanadon who wrote (5134)	12/7/2000 9:53:47 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Hi bwanadon, Re: I was wondering all along why this argument (the 10000s of other ballots) wasn't presented. I assumed they must have considered it. Is there something amiss in this logic? Anyone? My reading of the tea leavings is that the Dems are only pressing to recount the ballots in counties where they have a clear potential advantage in the manual vote count. The Republican case hinges on the argument that the recount totals and certification as of November 26 are final, binding and irrefutable. Thus they have no interest in having recounts performed in other undercount counties*. There are only 17 counties in Florida that use the suspect Votomatic punch card equipment. Predominantly by Democratic leaning voters. The Republicans are calculating, I think correctly, that a full recount of all undercounted ballots would swing the vote to Gore's favor. Not a result they seek. Aside from that bit of clear logical thinking, the Republicans seemingly have no grasp of honestly-applied statistics whatsoever. They are totally in denial that that if you extrapolate 6 votes added for Gore in 1% of the precincts already admitted to in manual re-counts in Miami-Dade that it makes any statistical sense that re-counting 100% of the precincts ought to yield 600 votes for Mr. Gore, or that it matters in the present election. You do see the logic of this, I hope. Perhaps you could explain it to me. Because my weak mind can't quite understand how 600 is a smaller number than 537, and thus immaterial to the contest. Best, Ray *Except in New Mexico. But that's different.... :)