From: Lucas Gonze (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 16:06:35 PST
> This is an interesting assertion. Any backup for this claim? And
> again, I think
> the interesting question is really: is the margin of error between dissimilar
> machines greater than the margin of error between given machine and
> hand recount?
I agree that a statewide hand recount is the right thing. If the point of this
stupid process is to get some faith in the election results, then we need to
know, absolutely completely beyond doubt etc, what the votes were.
But here is backup for the claim that the margin of error in the machine count
fluctuated wildly. Per Robert Thau on 11/14:
>From eyeballing this chart, the vast majority of the net change in the
totals came from a very few counties where the change was heavily
imabalanced in favor of Gore, with the bulk in just two:
Palm Beach - net change +643
Pinellas --- net change +478
Duval --- net change +168
Gadsden --- net change +163
Polk --- net change +129
The highest changes in favor of Bush were
Martin --- net change -105
Seminole --- net change -98 ---- (FWIW, last county to report)
No other county that I can spot had as much as a fifty vote net change
in favor of Bush. Note also that there were counties as populous as
many of these (Hillsboro, Miami-Dade, Broward(!)) where the shifts
weren't nearly as big, less than 50 --- some of which may have to do
with what equipment is used where, to be sure.
Even so, I am at a loss to explain how you generate numbers this
skewed by rolling fair dice of any description; am I nuts, or is this
statistical evidence of irregularity in the initial vote count ("let's
just not count these ballots here")?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 16:30:52 PST