Jim Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Ah Carlson - stop whinning. If the shoe were on the other foot the Republicans would be pulling out all stops for the same reason. It is too close and the state constitution allows for a recount. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 So I read through chucK's link. The info I was looking for--after all the statisitical mumbo-jumbo--was in the Conclusion section: "Have we made progress? Do machine counts improve on hand re-counts? At least in the comparison of optical scanning and paper, the answer is yes. Historically, there is about a 1 percent difference between initial counts and recounts when ballots are tabulated by hand." The comparison for optical ballots shows hand recounts are 0.5 percent less accurate. I don't know how these numbers can be used to look at (modify) Washington's almost 900,000 votes cast for the governor's race. All I know is that the study appears to show hand recounts are inherently less accurate--in so much as New Hampshire's historical data shows. Â I don't know who won this election but Carlson does make a good point that, if a recount is done and Gregoire's tally is greater than Rossi's, she will be no more legitimate a winner than Rossi and maybe less so in light of the above study's argument that hand recounts are less accurate. Â Are hand recounts really less accurate in WA--using Washington's system? I'm not in a position to say. And really, who of us cc.commies is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Like a bad call at a sports game that causes your team to lose, Chris lost. You can count and count and count until you get what you want, but 2 counts are good enough for me. How long must the STATE endure? Â I agree, and would if the results were the other way around. Â Imagine if the result does change after a 3rd count. That doesn't strike me as a good way to win - keep counting until it works out for your side? How much of a "mandate" is that? Dino won 2 out of 3 counts, why should the third one decide it? Doesn't it just muddy the results even more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 It's easy to increase accuracy during hand recounts - use more counters . Bayesian statistics. The individual errors will be random around the true value and cancel each other out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 It's easy to increase accuracy during hand recounts - use more counters . Bayesian statistics. The individual errors will be random around the true value and cancel each other out. Â There is talk about only doing the hand recounts in some districts. Obviously, this would be in those areas where the Dems think they could net a gain in the count. This would only muddy the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 It's easy to increase accuracy during hand recounts - use more counters . Bayesian statistics. The individual errors will be random around the true value and cancel each other out. Â Bayesian statistics huh. Nice big word Dru. Too bad you used it incorrectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Oh well I have to reread the Economist then they just had an article about it a few weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Saw a news story today where Gregoire said it's either recount the whole state (paid for by dems) or nothing at all. She apparently would rather concede than do a partial recount in counties where she would stand the most to gain. I don't know if the dems will be able to gather the necessary $$$ before the deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Your concept is correct, it's just not anything specifically Bayesian. Â The election is a tie. You could count and recount and recount and keep getting different answers. The only thing to do is follow established procedure, and see who wins that way. The option for a recount is established procedure. Stop whining you anti-recounters. Â Christine Gregoire could save somebody a bunch of money by quitting. Just the same as George Bush could save a lot of people from sorrow by abandoning his post (again) and hiding somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 "You could count and recount and recount and keep getting different answers." I already said that. Â "Just the same as George Bush could save a lot of people from sorrow by abandoning his post (again) and hiding somewhere." Is that the "established procedure," ya whiner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 it doesn't matter how many recounts are done. the tally is so close that the answer would probably change each time. Â it's interesting that the difference is 42 votes. no matter who ends up being governor of this state, the voters are divided. no clear majority here. Â as a democratic voter, i found it very distasteful to vote for gregoire and gave serious consideration to voting for rossi. it was truly a situation where i could find very little redeeming about one candidate so i voted against the policies of the other. Â i ended up voting on policies and the candidates' public positions on issues. if i had chosen to vote on morals i probably would've voted the other way. it's a shame that politics has come down to voting policies v. morals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graupel Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 Are you listening to what you are writing here? You aren't electing a preacher or boy scout leader, it isn't government's job to set morals for the citizens, nor are they empowered to do so. Â Yes, you want someone to be honest, but only because that is your only hope that the policies that they say they are for are the ones that they actually follow through with. Policies are the only lasting effect of a politician, so to vote based on anything else has about as much to do with anything as whether they were born on Tuesday in an odd numbered year under a full moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted December 5, 2004 Share Posted December 5, 2004 it doesn't matter how many recounts are done. the tally is so close that the answer would probably change each time. Â would probably change? the count and re-count so far have both shown rossi with the win. Â reminds me of that old saying... "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 I believe Minx may be referring to Miss Christine's membership in a UW sorority that specifically excluded black Americans. Â Still think morality is unimportant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 it doesn't matter how many recounts are done. the tally is so close that the answer would probably change each time. Â would probably change? the count and re-count so far have both shown rossi with the win. Â reminds me of that old saying... "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time." Â Wow, you express full understanding of statistics. You flip a coin twice and heads come up twice, it must be a two-headed coin, right? Â Dolt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 this isnt a coin flip, e-fag there has already been a set number of votes cast, even though some people are trying to see it another way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Lars, Look up Standard Deviation of the mean, and Standard Error. Â Moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graupel Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I believe Minx may be referring to Miss Christine's membership in a UW sorority that specifically excluded black Americans. Still think morality is unimportant?  That sounds like if somebody went into a "club" in Utah for a drink and all they were served was weak beer that you would blame the drinker for the bar's rules.  Hopefully a question of morals would be over something more substantial than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 she knew the rules, she chose to join  this is the first time ive seen racism compared to beer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 I believe Minx may be referring to Miss Christine's membership in a UW sorority that specifically excluded black Americans. Still think morality is unimportant?  That sounds like if somebody went into a "club" in Utah for a drink and all they were served was weak beer that you would blame the drinker for the bar's rules.  Hopefully a question of morals would be over something more substantial than that.  Another classic example of how the left will give an unlimited pass to a fellow liberal politician. She knowingly joined. Her participation was uncoerced and lasted many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 There could be a hundred reasons you do things as an 18-20 year-old that have little to do with who you are today. Â Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 There could be a hundred reasons you do things as an 18-20 year-old that have little to do with who you are today. Â Get over it. Gee, like, maybe HAVE A LESS THAN PERFECT NATIONAL GUARD RECORD?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Gee, like, maybe HAVE A LESS THAN PERFECT NATIONAL GUARD RECORD?????? How bout an accident that should have resulted in a manslaughter conviction (teddy k, mrs w ?) Â And if you think it's "less than perfect" how'd you feel if half of the soldiers in Iraq decided to go home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Don't be silly, cj001f, just 'get over it'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Don't be silly, cj001f, just 'get over it'. I'm working on it. I'll be so much happier when all the Salmon are gone  At least there was powder today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.