Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 03:52:42 12/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2000 at 23:01:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >Just so you know, _all_ of the following are true: > >1. there is _no_ perfect voting methodology. Some are more error-prone >than others (punched cards comes to mind) but _all_ have an error rate that >is larger than the margin in the Florida election. > That might be true, but it might also be false. That's just an opinion, that maybe statistically supported. >2. there is _no_ way to prevent corruption. There are ways to attempt to >control it. But it is _impossible_ to eliminate, when you have 100 million >potential votes to deal with. > Agreed. Although not all countries have corruption. >3. recounting 6 million of anything, since the error rate can not be zero, >is going to produce a different answer the second time. And the third time. >All within the standard error for the process, generally, but errors still. > Well, in Denmark we have about 4 million votes, and a hand count is ALWAYS done after the initial machinecounting, and the handcounting is always done until it shows exactly the same result twice in a row. So it's not impossible. Nor would it be impossible to do it in the entire US, as there are more people proportionally. >4. 99% of the time, the election isn't close enough to make the error rate >significant. This is an exception. > True. >5. The US will have a new president soon, and things will be back to normal >quickly, and things will run smoothly for the next 4 years, until the next >election. As smoothly as it ever runs ;)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.