Harvey wrote:
>I am concerned at how inaccurate the vote was until we started the recount.
>It is disturbing that a careful recount should take so much longer than the
>first count, and should come up with different numbers. We need a margin of
>error on elections.
It gets better and better.
>From EurekAlert yesterday we have two items:
Carnegie Mellon statistical study shows
with extreme confidence that ballot cost
Gore votes
at http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/cmu-cms110900.html, and
Study: Bush's placement on top of
Florida ballot gave him edge
at http://www.osu.edu/units/research/archive/bushfla.htm
The first gives mathematical support for what we already know, and the
second shows not only that the guy at the top of the list has a slight
automatic advantage, but also, in the matter of 'unfair advantage', that
the party in power in a given state controls the order of names on the ballot.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
Ray Charles
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:20 MDT