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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3247)	3/17/2002 11:46:53 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I have no stake in this match-up, but I am looking for an upset here by UCLA. The NCAA definitely trumps SI. Enjoy the game. JC

To: Lane3 who wrote (3247)	3/17/2002 12:56:39 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

washingtonpost.com Order in the Court You may have missed this, but judges in California are preparing to rule on whether social science research should make a difference in settling political disputes. So far, the verdict appears to be no. At stake is the outcome of one of the strangest elections since, well, that strange presidential election 16 months ago. Here's the story so far: It began last June in Compton, Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles. That's when challenger Eric Perrodin beatMayor OmarBradley by 281 votes. But Perrodin's name had been printed first on all the ballots, in violation of local election law that requires the order of names to be varied. Bradley challenged theresults in court. Enter Jon Krosnick, professor of psychology and political science at Ohio State University. His research suggested thata candidate whose name appears first on the ballot gets about 2.5 percent more votes than if his or her name appeared last. (If this sounds familiar, you're right. Krosnick's ballot-order studies were featured in this column in May 1998.) Based on his research, Krosnick testified that Perrodin probably got at least 306 more votes than he otherwise would have if his name had not always been listed first. Case closed, said Superior Court Judge Judith Chirlin. On Feb. 8, she took 306 votes from Perrodin and gave them to Bradley, making him the winner. "I love the fact that this work is of some value in helping to address real problems and, in this case, to making democracy work better," Krosnick said in a statement issued by the university. Well, maybe not. Bradley was back in City Hall only 18 days when a California appeals court ordered Perrodin temporarily reinstated. The judges said they wanted to decide for themselves whether Chirlin should have given Bradley those 306 votes just on the basis of Krosnick's research -- a clear sign that the judges were preparing to reverse Chirlin, court watchers told the Los Angeles Times. And then the California State Supreme Court refused to intervene, allowing Perrodin to stay in office while the appeals court reviews the case.