Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Joe's Graphics of Disenfranchisement, Turnout choked by too few machines

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
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 04:17 AM
Original message
Joe's Graphics of Disenfranchisement, Turnout choked by too few machines
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 04:52 AM by truehawk
Joe Knapps you are the Master!!!

Franklin County

http://www.copperas.com/machinery /

Effect of Voting-Machine Allocations on the 2004 Election -- Franklin County, Ohio

Despite unprecedented registration and get-out-the vote efforts in Franklin County, with predicted record turnout, only 61% of the county's registered voters turned out in the 2004 general election. Coupled with a time-consuming complicated ballot and the same number of voting machines as in 2000, the system was unable to handle the load of approximately 25% increase in registration rolls and high voter interest in what was billed as the most important election of a lifetime. Indeed, the county did process an increase of 23% in total voters compared to 2000. Many would-be voters were deterred by long lines and hours-long waits, prompting one observer to cite:

Ohio's new poll tax: if you can't afford to wait four hours in line, you don't vote.



The shortage of voting machines was particularly acute in high-Democratic precincts. New registrations and GOTV efforts by 527 organizations were also largely concentrated in these shortchanged Democratic precincts. The lines thus created by the unequal machine allocation throttled the effect of registration and GOTV efforts of ACT, MoveOn and other 527 groups in Franklin County.

This graph shows how there are more registered voters per machine in Kerry precincts



However, Democratic precincts are known to generally have a lower turnout (% of registered voters) than Republican precincts. Rather than basing machine allocations directly on the total registered voters, the Board of Election uses another figure called "active voters" which is the number of people in the precinct who have actively voted in the last two election cycles (8 years). Even by this measure though, it can be seen that Kerry precincts had more voters per machine.





E.g., 30% Kerry precincts had about 200 active voters per machine while 80% Kerry precincts had about 250, on the average. The following chart summarizes the situation:





There was a 5-minute time limit on voting, and people averaged about 4.3 minutes according to some reports. Therefore in the nominal 13-hour polling day (780 minutes), a machine could handle 780/4.3 or about 181 voters. People still in line at nominal poll closing were allowed to vote. In some cases polls were thus kept open until 11:00 pm. In that case about 230 voters could be handled.

Many polling places were operating at or near the maximum throughput based on the number of machines, as the following graph of actual voters in each precinct shows:





With the servers (polling booths) operating at maximum capacity, queuing theory predicts long queues and that was observed all over Franklin County. The above graph does not reflect the number of people who were dissuaded or unable to vote because of the lines. It shows a system throttled by the hardware, not by the desire of people to vote.

Long lines would be expected to have a negative effect on turnout, and the following graph shows:



Lots of scatter above but the moving-average line shows a depression of turnout as the number of voters allocated per machine goes up. At 150-200 active voters per machine, the precincts show a 60% turnout. At 300 active voters per machine, an average turnout of about 48% is seen.

Another way of looking at the effect above is to color-code the precincts, blue for Kerry and red for Bush:





The Kerry precincts would be expected to be the lower turnout ones, so that's not the salient point above per se. Rather that the population of Kerry precincts is shifted to the right, i.e., fewer machines per active voter on the average were allocated in the Kerry precincts. This would be expected to depress turnout in those precincts, more than normal. The Board of Elections has yet to justify these decisions.

The following diagram gives an idea of how the variation in machine allocation was distributed over the county:





The red (greater than 250 active voters per machine) precincts concentrate in the OSU, Clintonville, Linden, Hilltop, Olde Towne East, East Side and South End areas, all high-D areas.

Anecdotal accounts support the conclusion that machine shortages (and thus lines) were greatest in the high-D urban precincts and less in the high-R suburbs. See: Ohio Voter Suppression Hearing, Nov. 15, 2004

What Might Have Been Different

The BOE allocation of machines was inequitable and resulted in suppression of votes tending to favor Republican precincts.



What if they had instead optimally distributed the machines, based on minimizing the number of active voters per machine?

Here again is the machine allocation chosen by the BOE:



If those same 2,798 machines were optimally distributed:



Well, that looks better! No precinct is over 275 or so, and the trendline shows no tendency to favor Democratic or Republican precincts.

The algorithm to produce the optimal result was:

allocate one machine to each precinct
dole out the remaining machines, one at a time, to the neediest precinct based solely on active voters per machine
repeat until all machines are allocated
That allocation is more equitable. There is still the problem that with a maximum throughput of 181 voters per machine during normal polling hours, and up to 275 active voters per machine, even the equitable machine allocation would not have solved the problem of a generally overloaded system. Rather that at least Democrats and Republicans would have been suppressed equally.

The bottom line of this article, in the accounting sense, is what effect did the allocation of machines have on the plurality of votes for Kerry in Franklin County. A total of 515,472 people voted on the 2798 machines, for an average of 184 voters per machine. To a first approximation, in the overloaded situation, a extra machine for a precinct would simply mean 184 more votes for that precinct. Conversely, removing a machine from a precinct would result in 184 suppressed votes.

Kerry won in Franklin County by a plurality of 41,385 votes. Processing all the changes in machine allocation specified by the optimal distribution, and assuming that votes thus lost or gained in a precinct would be in proportion to the Kerry/Bush percentages in that precinct, Kerry's plurality would have been 9,971 votes more, or 51,356. He would have won by an additional 1.9% of the vote.

other links:

)

Thanks to Cliff Arnebeck, attorney with Common Cause, for sending me the data on machine counts in each precinct.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum 11/26/04

Elizabeth Liddle of the University Nottingham, UK, suggested the following graph to show the differential of of machine loading on Democratic (blue) and Republican (red) precincts:





While the number of actual voters per machine is approximately linear up to about 180 or so in each case, the curves start flattening out beyond that. Democratic precincts, for whatever reasons, are shown to be more sensitive to machine crowding in this regard. These curves provide a measure of the suppressive effect of machine crowding in general.

As for the differential effect between red and blue precincts, one factor might be a longer time taken to vote on the average in minority and urban precincts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. The graphics are incredible. However right now they're incred. slow.
Might I suggest editing your post and using links to help with the site performance problems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Sorry about the slow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmknapp Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Yes, this post has slashdotted my server
Which is only a DSL connection.

Nice thought, but maybe put some links up for the big images?

On the other hand, I suppose the storm will pass...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Sorry Joe
I can probably mirror them on my site tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. And don't foget these
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 04:42 AM by truehawk


Cuyahoga County




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. Now that's a clear bias. No question.
Statistics CAN have some meaning after all :)




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yeah if there were no bias the line of voters per machine per candidate
Would be horizontal. The fact that it has a positive slope means suppression. the fact that it occurs repetitively in more than one county is conspiracy. We need a crusadeing democracy loving attorney general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hot stuff! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. Please don't forget the first-time voting students at Kenyon College...
in Gambier, Ohio, who were allotted two machines, one of which broke down within an hour, and waited 6, 8, 12 hours to vote. Their story made the national news, when the last student voted at 3 a.m.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarkusQ Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
8. BINGO! And further...
Bingo! That's exactly the conclusion I've come to. But I don't have nearly so sharp a presentation of my data.

A few points which I have also found:

  • The definition of "active voters" partially hides the problem, since only voters who weren't suppressed in previous elections count against them. This is akin to only reporting rapes of virgins, and ignoring repeated rape of the same individual.
  • Another way in which the same point manifests itself: you state that voter turnout is "expected" to be lower in Democratic precincts. Why should that be? If the answer is "based on historical data" you may simply be showing that the suppression has been going on for years.
  • There is a demonstrable effect of the suppression on the results, since machines come in discrete units. However, "demonstrable" in this context does not mean "obvious"--I'm working on finding a way to make it so.

Thanks again for the wonderful write up!


--MarkusQ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. Amazing work
Thank you for sharing the graphics. Awe-inspiring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inchhigh Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. Great Work
There is one Bush Precinct out there on the far right with over 350 voters per machine and over 60% turnout. Is it possible to identify that individual precinct?

I'm thinking it makes the case stronger if the high Repub percentage turnouts were in low population areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chorti Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. details on the Repug outlier
Columbus 73J, Albany Commons, 5621 Warner Park Dr.
554 votes for Kerry, 743 for Bush.
624 for the gay marriage ban, 563 against.
2058 registered voters, 172 D, 121 R, 1765 unaffiliated.
2004 - 2058 registered voters, 1938 active voters. (Newly registered are considered active.)
New precinct in 2004. Must be a new sub-division because all other ward 73 precincts also saw voter registration gains. That would also explain all the "active" voters - they must have re-registered from elsewhere.
5 Voting Machines Allocated - 388 active voters per voting machine. Official turnout 1308 - 262 voters per machine, highest in the county. At 5 minutes per person that is 21.8 hours. At 3.5 minutes per person that is 15.3 hours per person. (7 AM to 10:20 PM).
The vote tally is off by 16% from the party declaration in the voter rolls, although with the high number of unaffiliated that is not very accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmknapp Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. It's near Worthington
Just east of Antrim Park.

Other precincts in the ward (73) seemed to lean to Bush also.

That is such a high throughput for those machines. The machine allocation data came from the Board of Elections, but I wonder if it includes any machines schlepped up there if they sounded a mayday.

PS This thread is killing my server. It really needs to be scaled down on the embedded graphics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
12. Your post made me go back and examine my own experiences.
Our polling place, an elementary school, has two precincts. One sets up in the cafeteria and the other in the gym.

The gym precinct encompasses less land mass, the homes are mostly single family detached homes with a few town homes. About half of these homes were built within the last 10 years. A park takes up about one quarter of the land mass. I wish I could tell you the average home value or median income, but I don't know. I do know that none of the single family homes would sell for less than $450,000; none of the townhomes would sell for less than $350,000. Their pollbooks were split into two sections of about 1500 registered voters each. Two and a half machines per pollbook segment. Around 600 registered voters per machine. They had around 1700 voters who used 5 machines.

The cafeteria precinct not only covers more land mass, the single family homes are 90% townhomes and there are numerous apartment complexes and more are being built every day. To my knowledge, all of these homes are less than ten years old. The townhomes are in the same price range. Among the numerous apartment and condominium complexes are a subsidized community and a senior community. Their pollbooks were split into three (approx. 1500 voter) sections. Two machines per pollbook segment. A little under 730 registered voters per machine. This precinct had around 2700 voters (61% of total registered, 72% of active) turn out who used 6 machines.

Both precincts went for Kerry. The Cafeteria went more heavily for Kerry, 58%.

As I saw it, the gym precinct paid higher property taxes and had one voting machine for every 340 voters. The cafeteria, the "poorer" of the two precincts, had one machine for every 430 voters.

The gym had much shorter lines. The longest wait was probably a half hour for the gym. At one point, the cafeteria had to pause checking in the voters at the poll books because the line for the machines had over 400 people in it. At that time, the line to check in was probably around 600 people. At peak, the wait for the cafeteria voters was around one and a half hours.

The lines for both precincts dwindled around mid afternoon. There was no significant line for either precinct at 7:00 when the polls closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
15. I am trying to put together a presentation on all the voting
irregularities in Columbus, Ohio (deliberate misallocation of machines, extra votes for Shrub in Gahanna, etc.). Can anyone direct me to "long voting lines" news stories from Columbus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Try these:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmac Donating Member (414 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. To read through all of those testimonies
makes me sick. I do not understand how ANYONE, regardless of party affiliation can read this and not demand that something be done to allow these people their right to vote - not in 2006 or 2008, but in THIS historic election! Why should this lowly scheme be allowed to stand, uncontested? WHY?!

And if I hear one more time that "we are not trying to overturn the election results" I am going to scream. Who are they saying that to anyway? Us? Or Bush and Co.? It sounds like they are saying we are going to do this to shut these people up, but don't you worry - nothing will really change (except they do try to say they will try to change things before the next election - but by damn, I heard that in 2000!)


Long overdue rant - now maybe I can go out into the world without biting heads off. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. You guys are great. Thanks for the help. Also, check out

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapCounty&...

Where you can find complaints county-by-county in each state. It's a great resource.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. By the way, here is a summary of some long-line complaints
You can see the complaints yourself at
https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapCounty&...
Here are actual samples:
st. al's church - on broad 4 hour line and only 3 machines. in 2000, had 5.
4 hours - 250th voter since 6:30 am - voted at 2:30
no curbside voting. 4 hour wait. diabetic forced to wait. presiding judge says staffing.
3.5-4 hours to vote

Also, there is the testimony from Ohio Voter Suppression Hearing which took place at the Franklin County Court House, 373 S. High St.,
Columbus, meeting room A, 11/15/04 6:00pm-10:00pm

Jen Miller

- worked at 29B and 1A, Southside Settlement House
- election protection volunteer
- low-income Appalachian area
- 4 hour line
- 2 pcts, 3 machines per precinct (there were 4 per pct in 2000)
- 1 machine was down
- lack of poll workers; no was was directing the precinct split in the line
- handicapped voters were not directed to accessible entrance or helped in any way
- handicapped voters given no preferential treatment in long lines
- observed numerous problems with people voting and cried for three hours when she got home

Or you can go to http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/89... :

Jerry Doyle, Franklin County:
I voted at precinct 13, and I got there around a quarter till nine, and I didn't get out of there until about ten minutes to one. And there is a lot of, you know, my wife and I, we both went to vote, and so there is a lot of people, elderly people behind me that couldn't stand, that was in worse shape than I was, and they were not offered any assistance, and I thought that was wrong, you know. And I was there for all of that time, over four hours, and I wasn't offered any assistance, you know. And there was a lady about three, four people behind me, she was arguing on her cell phone, I guess to her employer, and she asked, she said well, I have been in this line for two hours, you know, and it looks like it is going to be another hour, and she was telling him -- I am telling you what I heard her say, you know, she was on the cell phone. And she said, I will make it up, the time I lose, no matter what, or no matter how long, I will make it up, please let me stay here, and I guess he said no, because she got very upset and she had to leave to protect her job, you know.


Murlien Featherstone, Franklin County:
I have been a proceed presiding judge for 20 years, I have been at the Ohio Avenue School for I guess six years or so. This election I was at Ohio Avenue School as presiding judge. We always had four machines at election time. During the primary, we had four machines. When I walked in the door Tuesday morning, we had three, and I couldn't understand why we only had three, knowing that this election was going to be the way it was, and I called them up and I asked them, where is my other machine? And first they told me, ma'am, we are going to try to get you a machine. I called back the second time and told them I don't need one, I need two, I said because we got a line. They said how long was the line, is it 100 feet? I said, yeah, about 150 feet, and some people had been in line three and four hours. When I called them the third time and asked them about the machine, they said, ma'am we are not going to get you no machine, we are not going to get you any machine, and what we want you to do is do best you can with what you got, and that is what we did. We had people leaving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. I S"OOOO totally understand.
It is our intention to win this time.

Screw 2008, if we don't stop this now........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myschkin Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
16. Send it to NYT

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoogyMan Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. Something to read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. This is SUCH Bullshit!!
This poor uneducated engineer thinks that the B00 and B004 are the givens and the dependant variables being computed to fit the given data are the corrolation cofficents b1-b6, and EV.

But what do I know. I should stick to fluid dynamics I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. Why would Franklin County's bipartisan election board do this?
County election boards in Ohio have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Why would the Democrats on this board go along with this? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Their grandchildren are tied up in a closet?
They weren't paying attention?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemis12 Donating Member (594 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. And Franklin BOE chairman
Edited on Tue Dec-07-04 02:26 PM by bemis12
... is an African-American who is the Chairman of the Franklin Co Democratic Party.

To believe Franklin Co. intenionally disenfranchised people, one has to believe that he turned against his own party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Or was NOT paying attention
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Go ASK him why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. If anyone is interested in asking him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmknapp Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. The Board members do not determine the allocations
They farm this out to other staff. This is per Damschroder on Fred Anderle's NPR show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Who hires and supervises this staff?
Are you saying that the bi-partisan elecion board (which is chaired by a Democrat) simply isn't doing a good job in overseeing its staff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmknapp Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Maybe you should worry more about the discrimination
in voting machines based on the stated measure of active voters per machine, and less about playing defense for the Frnaklin County BOE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
26. So is this what Arnebeck is talking about when he says he has proof
that Kerry lost xxxx number of votes? Are statisitics and random testimony legally compelling/valid arguments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmknapp Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Not Arnebeck's argument
He's chasing Supreme Court candidates in KKK country.

But as for your question:

"Are statisitics and random testimony legally compelling/valid arguments?"

In Castaneda, a jury selection case, the SCOTUS accepted statistical evidence to prove discrimination.


"Held: Based on all the facts that bear on the grand jury discrimination issue, such as the statistical disparities (the county population was 79% Mexican-American, but, over an 11-year period, only 39% of those summoned for grand jury service were Mexican-American), the method of jury selection, and any other relevant testimony as to the manner in which the selection process was implemented, the proof offered by respondent was sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case of intentional discrimination in grand jury selection, and the State failed to rebut such presumption by competent evidence."


This is the statistical method used to prove discrimination:


"If the jurors were drawn randomly from the general population, then the number of Mexican-Americans in the sample could be modeled by a binomial distribution. See Finkelstein, The Application of Statistical Decision Theory to the Jury Discrimination Cases, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 338, 353-356 (1966). See generally P. Hoel, Introduction to Mathematical Statistics 58-61, 79-86 (4th ed. 1971); F. Mosteller, R. Rourke, & G. Thomas, Probability with Statistical Applications 130-146, 270-291 (2d ed. 1970). Given that 79.1% of the population is Mexican-American, the expected number of Mexican-Americans among the 870 persons summoned to serve as grand jurors over the 11-year period is approximately 688. The observed number is 339. Of course, in any given drawing some fluctuation from the expected number is predicted. The important point, however, is that the statistical model shows that the results of a random drawing are likely to fall in the vicinity of the expected value. See F. Mosteller, R. Rourke, & G. Thomas, supra, at 270-290. The measure of the predicted fluctuations from the expected value is the standard deviation, defined for the binomial distribution as the square root of the product of the total number in the sample (here 870) times the probability of selecting a Mexican-American (0.791) times the probability of selecting a non-Mexican-American (0.209). Id., at 213. Thus, in this case the standard deviation is approximately 12. As a general rule for such large samples, if the difference between the expected value and the observed number is greater than two or three standard deviations, then the hypothesis that the jury drawing was random would be suspect to a social scientist. The 11-year data here reflect a difference between the expected and observed number of Mexican-Americans of approximately 29 standard deviations. A detailed calculation reveals that the likelihood that such a substantial depature from the expected value would occur by chance is less than 1 in 10 140. The data for the 2 1/2-year period during which the State District Judge supervised the selection process similarly support the inference that the exclusion of Mexican-Americans did not occur by chance. Of 220 persons called to serve as grand jurors, only 100 were Mexican-Americans. The expected Mexican-American representation is approximately 174 and the standard deviation, as calculated from the binomial model, is approximately six. The discrepancy between the expected and observed values is more than 12 standard deviations. Again, a detailed calculation shows that the likelihood of drawing not more than 100 Mexican-Americans by chance is negligible, being less than 1 in 10^25."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. What does SCOTUS mean?
It refers to the Supreme Court -- but what does the acronym mean?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. supreme court of the united states
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-04 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Thanks!
SCOTUS makes perfect sense now. So I guess Arnebeck is filing tomorrow with SCOO?

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-08-04 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
40. kick nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truehawk Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-09-04 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
41. From out of the past back to the light of night KICK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. one small kick for a man, a giant kick for mankind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec 19th 2018, 05:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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