From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 16:05:28 PST
Lucas Gonze wrote:
> The deviation between machines is pretty huge so far.
Somebody --- a political scientist --- is going to get a PhD studying this
particular election in Florida at some point, I'm sure.
Until I see the hard data, though, I am having a hard time believing your
assertions. A machine, at least, doesn't have the same susceptibility to
preferential measurement that a partisan human (from either camp) might have.
You're telling me that, for some reason, in the disputed counties, the machines
tended to discount votes particularly and disproportionately when the ballot in
question was for Gore?
Why in the world would that be?
Again: it doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate the machines are: if used
uniformly, there's no conceivable reason why the results should favor one candidate
over another. The results, however inaccurate the totals, would be representative
of the actual vote on a proportional basis. (Assuming that the deviation between
machines is universally similar statewide.) I.e., *fair.*
If you want *fair* _and_ *accurate,* well, you're asking for a lot. ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 16:25:29 PST