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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (22126)	12/11/2000 2:19:31 PM
From: Nazbuster	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

INTC plans 10ghz processor... Message 14992395

To: Petz who wrote (22126)	12/11/2000 2:52:42 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 275872

John, RE:"The US media is too dumb to see what's going on. Thank God the US Supreme Court isn't." Some guy on FOX actually did spell that out but it seems CNN and MSNBC are still oblivious or just want to see a close horse race no matter what. Were the details of the 168 Gore partial hand recount in Dade spelled out to the USSC? Where Gore precincts were counted first.. Jim

To: Petz who wrote (22126)	12/11/2000 3:10:10 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz, a few errors in your election analysis: 1. The FSC did not order the inclusion of partial recount results. They ordered the completed Palm Beach recount included, and the complete Miami Dade recount to be included (which consists of the partial count already done, and the count (to be done) of the 9000 ballots from the remaining precincts. 2. If the recount goes forward, even under fairly conservative standards, Gore has a reasonable chance of victory. Apparently, the Duval county undervote is (on average) concentrated in heavily democratic precincts, despite the county being Republican overall. Besides, it's fairly well established that Democratic voters tend to have more ballot difficulties, which isn't surprising when you consider that they tend to be either stupid or brilliant, with most Republicans falling in that 'smart enough to be dangerous' middle ground. As for the number of undervotes out there, please explain why > 1% of people in punch-card counties did not vote for president, while only 0.3% of people in optical-scanning counties didn't. You can't, except to admit that the punch card machines are missing votes. Any other conclusion is statistically untenable. That more 'undervote' ballots are Gore ballots than Bush ballots is also evident. Bush knows this. That's why his team is desperate to prevent even a statewide recount. That's why they try to run away from the manual recount provisions of their own home state. 3. The U.S. Media has been INCREDIBLY biased toward the GOP in this entire affair. MSNBC and Fox are the worst, with CNN approaching evenhandedness. 'Liberal media' my ss. 4. If there's any court bias, it's in the U.S. Supreme Court. How funny to watch States' Rights Scalia attempt to find some tortured reading that allows him to go against all his own previous precedents. Apparently he believes that Federal intervention is* warranted when a Republican is asking for it. Having watched today, the only question is, will Rehnquist have the decency to do the right thing, perhaps dragging Kennedy with him, leaving Scalia to wallow in his own inconsistencies, with the company of his lackey Thomas, and the increasingly senile O'Connor. If I had to guess: 6-3 to remand to Florida Circuit court to set a more specific standard (even though there is NO reason the case should have even been taken). If Bush campaign co-chair Harris is allowed to set the standard, Gore loses. If it's the Court that sets it, he may win. If the Court picked the Texas standard, Gore wins by > 1000. Doug p.s. To those who think it's within the error bar, and we should just give it to Bush: Huh? In a tie, you split the votes. Give bush 13 electors, and Gore takes 12.

To: Petz who wrote (22126)	12/11/2000 4:15:49 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 275872

Yeah, yeah, thank God that Scalia sees his job as preserving W's "legitimacy". Given the 8 years of Republican denial that Clinton ever won an election, excuse me while I go puke.

To: Petz who wrote (22126)	12/11/2000 9:51:19 PM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Petz: Not true for two reasons. First, the TRUE undercount of votes is much less than 1% of the votes cast, since MOST of the votes rejected by the machines are true NON-VOTES, even using the liberal "Broward County Rules." I think you misunderstand me somewhat. I was not referring to the number of under-votes, true non-votes or otherwise. Rather, I was referring to a combination of factors. Scientific studies show that ballot design has a significant impact on both the number of non-votes and the number of mis-votes (e.g. double votes), as well as the distribution of the votes between the candidates. Now, I have not seen any scientific data on butterfly ballots, since these are not used (or even contemplated) in Scandinavia. The mantra here is the standard Keep-It-Simple-Stupid. However, there does seem to be a reasonable amount of evidence of a skew in votes (compared to true voter intent) when employing the butterfly ballot. Specifically, there is strong evidence pointing to a skew of votes from the second listed candidate to the first candidate in the second column (in the Florida case from Gore to Buchannon). All ballot layouts influence the outcome to some degree and thus contribute to the minimum error (and, thus, maximum precision). There is simply no such thing as a completely neutral ballot; there can only be the aim to minimize the bias. Clearly, a butterfly ballot is a huge step in the wrong direction ;). My claim in my original posting was that this bias, combined with other factors, makes it statistically impossible to determine the "true voter intent". There is no reasonable way to determine if a vote for Buchannon (or, indeed, a double vote) was intended to be a vote for Gore. That's just tough luck. In the end, it was a coin toss and Bush won it. The problem in this case is then that the coin toss can be appealed ;) One last item: There is absolutely no question AT ALL, that a manual recount of all undervotes in a specific district is blatantly unfair. Gore lost a lot of my sympathy by asking for this particular remedy. In many ways I find it similar to the way many "environmental organizations" act: While the underlying philosophies may be sympathetic (even very much so, at times), the acts and rantings of the organizations discredit their cause significantly. I honestly believe that much more would have been obtained by the environmental lobby, if only the more extreme of them had kept quiet. (I wanted to use "rabient" instead of "extreme", but it seems that the word doesn't exist???) addenum: As usual, don't try to gauge my political preferences from my postings. It can't be done ;) -fyo