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
Google

Reply #38: you were? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-15-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. you were?
Because what you wrote was, "What do you think it would take to get a a >90% confidence in one of the state's state-wide elections where the margin is, say, 2%?" I never did establish what you meant by "the state[]," but I thought at least "state-wide" was clear enough.

Certainly 3% audits can easily fail to detect some outcome-changing errors in small contests -- although if such errors are common, some of them will be detected. If we want more rigorous audits, we can pay more for them. Or not. People actually get to discuss the issue and choose. At least, that's how it ought to work. Arguing about it on DU doesn't make much difference, obviously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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