You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #30: well many I've talked to seem to agree [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. well many I've talked to seem to agree
there is a mathematical basis for basing the sample size on the winning percentage. the theory goes... if someone stole an election, that would mean that they lost in reality, and won in the results. so, if they did that, the greater the margin of victory, the more stolen votes there are in the system, and the easier it is to catch, and thus the smaller sample size required. in other words, if someone alters the results to make themselves win 75% of the votes when they really lost 49-51, a relatively smaller sample size is required to find evidence of fraud. On the other hand, if they lost in reality 49-51 and changed the results through fraud to win 51-49, then a larger sample size would be needed to catch them.

this makes sense to me. the only thing that bothers me is that the ultimate goal is just to make sure the correct winner is placed in office, not find any evidence of fraud, whatever it is. In other words if there was "vote trimming" that did not affect the winner of a particular race but had national implications, this sort of sample sizing would not be directed at finding such problems. as well, there could be a variety of computer glitches (not fraud) that could have random affects on the election results, and this likewise would not be aimed at finding such problems. having said that, if the goal is to put the right person in office, I do understand the idea of changing sample size based on several inputs, including margin of victory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -New "Holt Bill": Fraudulent and Deceptive Use of term "Ballot" Land Shark  Feb-06-07 12:37 AM   #0 
  - "Fradulent paper record dressed up as a ballot"  kpete   Feb-06-07 12:48 AM   #1 
  - Why the *uck wasn't electoral reform part of the 'first 100hrs'? n/t  bananarepublican   Feb-06-07 12:57 AM   #2 
     - good question. But actually the Congress has so much to learn that it's not READY  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 01:05 AM   #3 
        - But....what happened to all the Info from the Conyers Basement Hearings and  KoKo01   Feb-06-07 03:10 PM   #59 
           - People are being lectured that any major pro-public oversight is not "realistic"  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 09:41 PM   #62 
  - K&R  GuvWurld   Feb-06-07 01:05 AM   #4 
  - Just come right out and say it, LS.  Wilms   Feb-06-07 01:06 AM   #5 
  - DRE's are a specific problem, Electronic Counts are the General Problem  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 01:30 AM   #6 
     - And I should have noted I appreciate what you're saying about bastardizing the ballot.  Wilms   Feb-06-07 01:44 AM   #7 
  - My reaction.  garybeck   Feb-06-07 01:49 AM   #8 
  - garybeck, the studies showing that people do not check their paper  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 02:24 AM   #11 
  - Well, since you ask.  garybeck   Feb-06-07 03:07 AM   #12 
     - Very nicely analysed  Febble   Feb-06-07 04:46 AM   #15 
        - Everyone assumes that the silly sign "INFORMS" the public of something, but  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 09:00 AM   #19 
        - Well, thanks for the invite...  Febble   Feb-06-07 09:55 AM   #24 
        - C'mon Febble are you actually thingins this through? the more you cheat the smaller the sample size  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 10:10 AM   #26 
        - I'm not following:  Febble   Feb-06-07 10:33 AM   #27 
        - ok, garybeck writes favorably of Holt generally and you say that's a good analysis  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 10:52 AM   #29 
           - What I read, Land Shark, was your post  Febble   Feb-06-07 11:03 AM   #32 
           - WARNING: DO NOT READ THIS MESSAGE whatever you do.  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 11:21 AM   #36 
              - That's silly  Febble   Feb-06-07 11:39 AM   #41 
                 - As a practical matter, using objective methods of counting, the paper will rarely count  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 12:04 PM   #45 
                    - Perception:  Febble   Feb-06-07 12:10 PM   #48 
                       - well i took back the highlighted comment before I saw this  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 01:12 PM   #53 
                          - Well, I'm not going to do that  Febble   Feb-06-07 01:26 PM   #56 
                             - Febble when I am writing to you or thinking of you I am always smiling  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 09:51 PM   #63 
                                - Like this?  Febble   Feb-07-07 04:21 AM   #64 
                                   - Tis True, the biggest smiles are always for the camera (or the cameraMAN!)  Land Shark   Feb-07-07 10:36 PM   #67 
           - And of course, I also read garybeck's post  Febble   Feb-06-07 11:05 AM   #33 
              - it's not a "with us vs against us" analysis. Just pointing out that  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 11:35 AM   #39 
                 - I did NOT defend  Febble   Feb-06-07 11:54 AM   #43 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-06-07 01:05 PM   #52 
        - OK  Febble   Feb-06-07 10:57 AM   #31 
        - I don't think a DRE will ever work.  eomer   Feb-06-07 12:09 PM   #47 
           - I'd be happy with that  Febble   Feb-06-07 12:11 PM   #49 
        - well many I've talked to seem to agree  garybeck   Feb-06-07 10:54 AM   #30 
           - a "basis" for doing something doesn't mean it's justified in this particular expression  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 11:11 AM   #34 
              - c'mon  garybeck   Feb-06-07 11:33 AM   #38 
                 - elections are mutlidisciplinary and the facts that make this winning% principle mostly wrong  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 11:49 AM   #42 
                    - Just because one law  Febble   Feb-06-07 12:03 PM   #44 
        - clarifying the term "BALLOT"  garybeck   Feb-06-07 10:43 AM   #28 
           - I take your point  Febble   Feb-06-07 11:14 AM   #35 
              - well, we agree on the following quote, and to me it ends the important part of the argument  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 11:27 AM   #37 
                 - I will always be seriously bothered  Febble   Feb-06-07 12:05 PM   #46 
                    - For the nth time, WHO should perform the audits? Govt audits itself???  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 01:20 PM   #54 
                       - Well, who do you suggest conduct HCBPs?  Febble   Feb-06-07 01:31 PM   #57 
                          - well Holt II provides that entirely APPOINTED people do it, not elected  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 03:18 PM   #60 
  - The link to the bill  Land Shark   Feb-07-07 10:51 AM   #65 
  - Holt is a grown man but he does not get it,  kster   Feb-06-07 01:55 AM   #9 
  - Ugh!!!  nicknameless   Feb-06-07 01:57 AM   #10 
  - Land Shark:  Febble   Feb-06-07 03:26 AM   #13 
  - So you do NOT think that people EXPECT a ballot to be counted the FIRST TIME???  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 09:43 AM   #23 
     - No, it's not a "technical" argument at all  Febble   Feb-06-07 10:03 AM   #25 
  - Good grief!! What is it about crooked elections that our  loudsue   Feb-06-07 03:44 AM   #14 
  - OK, Everyone --- Here's His Form ---- Attack  Senator   Feb-06-07 05:48 AM   #16 
  - Good questions. And WHY does Holt think that unless we follow the Arthur Anderson rule  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 09:26 AM   #22 
  - You're right. It's not a ballot  rock   Feb-06-07 06:19 AM   #17 
  - They do in fairness propose some legal fiction language to partly address the chaos  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 09:15 AM   #20 
  - Two ballots?  BeFree   Feb-06-07 12:46 PM   #51 
  - Why did I just get an earworm of  stellanoir   Feb-06-07 07:23 AM   #18 
  - Instead of "I Voted Electronically" stickers we will need a new sticker that says  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 09:21 AM   #21 
  - the correct language would be:  garybeck   Feb-06-07 11:35 AM   #40 
  - Cool. n/t  Febble   Feb-06-07 12:12 PM   #50 
  - " the case of an audit or recount but not if the race is close and an automatic recount  Land Shark   Feb-06-07 01:24 PM   #55 
     - You will have to explain your problem  Febble   Feb-06-07 01:34 PM   #58 
  - Thank you.  SimpleTrend   Feb-06-07 08:28 PM   #61 
  - Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! Nothing more and Nothing less! nt  In Truth We Trust   Feb-07-07 12:11 PM   #66 
  - Kick.(nt)  Kurovski   Feb-10-07 02:15 AM   #68 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC