From: Lucas Gonze (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 19:24:10 PST
> 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.
> no reason to assume the margin of error between hand counts in different areas
> constant, which is what you'd have to assume to make the claim you're making.
> believe it far more likely that this points to greater margin of error between
> different sets of hand counters than between different machines.
That data doesn't say anything about the margin of error for the difference
between a given machine count and hand count. We would need a third number -
the actual vote count - to know the margin of error for the difference. You
could also use the margin of error for each machine, versus the margin of error
for any hand count.
But the margin of error of a hand count doesn't have to be a constant to support
my point. It only has to be smaller than the margin of error of a machine
count. If the machines are more likely to make errors, and there are errors,
then errors are more likely to have come from the machines. Thus a fluctuating
error count is more likely to come from the machines than the humans.
In any event, the voting machines downstate (Gore turf) were different than the
ones upstate (Bush turf). Downstate they used punch cards, and upstate they
used OpScan (a fill-in ballot). Punch cards tend to undercount, which disfavors
the more popular candidate. Punch card machines are also older, and mechanical,
while OpScan machines are newer, and electronic. The error rate for OpScan is
lower than for punch cards. If you really want to find out the error rate of
the voting machines used, you can look them up at
...good god these threads eat time. I am going back to lurking.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 19:30:24 PST