Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:50:34 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: Doug Young <dougy@bryden.apana.org.au>, Jeremiah Gowdy <jgowdy@home.com>, Jason <kib@mediaone.net>, ldmservices@charter.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Will It Never End? (was Re: CA Power Shortage (was Re: Why do you support Yahoo!)) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001223124211.00cf5940@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20001221140927.A2118@rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexco>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:09 PM 12/21/2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: >But any scientist also knows that there is and will always be some >margin of error in any measurement. Voting is a messy process and will >always have some inherent, irreducible error. So what _do_ you do when >the result falls within the noise, as it did in this case? I suppose >it is possible that if you had a re-vote, the signal might emerge from the >noise, but it is quite possible the outcome would still be well within >the error margin. Improve your methods of measurement until you get a result that is within a resonable confidence interval. Otherwise, do not publish. >Since you are not actually making the same >measurement in both cases (imagine how different the turnout would >be), The turnout would be different because one of the sources of error in the measurement was that voters were turned away from the polls -- a horrendous violation of their rights as citizens. It would be the same measurement, but without this filter on the input. >Actually, hmmm, where did I see a little discussion of reducing the >error in voting... Oh, yeah, Bruce Schneier rebuttted some of those >saying more computerized or (*ack*) on-line voting is a cure-all for >this kind of thing in this month's Crypto-gram. Online and/or electronic voting is not a cure-all, but would likely be better than current techniques. >> I don't like either Bush or Gore, by the way. > >Me neither. I guess I like Gore less, but since I excersised the >option to vote for neither of Gore or Bush, I really did not have to >sit down and decide which was the lesser of two evils. But it would >have been nice if Gore won so that we could have split Congress and >the Executive among the Dems and Reps as much as possible. Typically, >the less legislation they can agree on and pass in Washington, the >better. Unfortunately, other positions within the administration also matter. Now that Bush has named John Ashcroft as his Attorney General, watch Bill Gates and his cronies get off scot-free as the government abandons the antitrust case. (Gates has the Republicans well bought, and Ashcroft is a party line ultra-right-winger.) Also watch for all voluntary termination of pregnancy to be outlawed in the U.S. within 4 years. >> In any event, it is undeniable that if the rules were followed -- >> that is, if the will of the people had mattered -- Gore would have won. > >But those are _not_ the rules, and everyone knew that going into >this. The Electoral College silliness is the rule, and I don't think >there is anyway anyone can say conclusively that "Gore won" according >to those rules. I can. Look at the statistics! According to those rules AND Florida law (which requires ballots to be laid out in a single column with the check boxes or punch holes to the right of the names) Gore won. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20001223124211.00cf5940>