Reply #13: New Mexico Statistical Summary with Voting Type Comparison

[L. Coyote]

I've completed the statistical summary of ten stats for fifty-two variables (ya gotta luv computers!) and here is the comparison of non-votes in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races. I sorted to three voting machine categories with 11 counties each, plus both E-voting vendors in one category (22 conties) and, of course, statewide with all 33 counties.

2000		2004			
					
Average Deviation:					
0.226		1.313		OpScan	
0.789		1.478		E-Voting Danather	
1.441		1.084		E-Voting Sequoia	
1.242		1.371		E-Voting All	
1.672		1.709		Statewide	
					
Covariance					
30.362		112.067		OpScan	
24.882		39.717		E-Voting Danather	
30.176		36.242		E-Voting Sequoia	
31.261		40.844		E-Voting All	
57.710		65.030		Statewide	
					
Mean (average)					
0.745		1.172		OpScan	
3.171		3.721		E-Voting Danather	
4.776		2.991		E-Voting Sequoia	
3.973		3.356		E-Voting All	
2.897		2.628		Statewide	
					
Skew					
0.983		3.279		OpScan	
0.457		0.008		E-Voting Danather	
1.654		1.595		E-Voting Sequoia	
1.936		0.660		E-Voting All	
1.291		0.922		Statewide	
					
Population Standard Deviation:					
0.270		2.291		OpScan	
0.990		1.715		E-Voting Danather	
2.125		1.580		E-Voting Sequoia	
1.841		1.689		E-Voting All	
2.145		2.171		Statewide	
					{/pre]
I suspect that the 2000 comparison will have utility to thse who know what machines were used in 2000.  

For 2004, the mean of 3.721% E-Voting Danather really stands out.

Here is a comparison for what happened in Ohio with non-votes.