From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 16:38:18 PST
Lucas Gonze wrote:
> > 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.
Well, I don't think you're ever going to get *that* ...but I agree with you in that,
if the purpose is to generate faith in the election results, then by all means
proceed with recounting. As long as it's *fair* --- i.e., statewide, conducted with
a standard process.
> But here is backup for the claim that the margin of error in the machine count
> fluctuated wildly. Per Robert Thau on 11/14: ...
That's comparing the margin of error between a given machine and the hand count in a
given area, not comparing the margin of error between dissimilar machines. There's
no reason to assume the margin of error between hand counts in different areas is
constant, which is what you'd have to assume to make the claim you're making. I
believe it far more likely that this points to greater margin of error between
different sets of hand counters than between different machines.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 16:59:37 PST