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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (545)	11/4/2004 11:59:51 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361658

it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III. that's depressing.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (545)	11/5/2004 12:08:28 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361658

Oh Come on!

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (545)	11/5/2004 1:07:27 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 361658

Give it up, Patty. It was a clean kill.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (545)	11/5/2004 7:52:23 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 361658

"We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count." What a freakin' moron. Doesn't this so-called "journalist" understand the basic principles of statistics? Pollsters report those pesky "±3%" disclaimers for a reason, you know. It's called a "confidence interval". If they say "51% of respondents said they voted for" whoever, that means only that 51% of those polled said that, not that 51% of all votes were cast for that candidate. It is only an estimate of the population mean, not the actual number. When they say "51%, ±3%", they mean "we are 95% confident that the real number is between 48% and 54%." So what does this mean in the context of this article? It means that a "journalist" who extrapolates from an exit poll to find "proof" that ANY candidate won by any specific number of votes (or won at all if the confidence intervals overlap) is either lying (under the assumption that his readers are too stupid to know the difference, which may be a safe bet with Palast's target audience), or is simply ignorant. Take your pick. PS: Why does he assume that only "democratic voters" are too stupid to punch their chads properly?