[E-voting] Margin of error - was RE: "Black box" irregularities in the ...

Craig Burton craig at e1c.net
Mon Aug 1 12:08:43 IST 2005


Just about all elections have a margin of error.
Whether or not it is estimated at the time of the election or is set in 
the local law varies.
It is not well defined on wikipedia and I haven't had time to dig it off 
the gov.au site but there's a nice intro to it here as it became 
relevant in Florida in 00.
http://www.kband.com/corporate/election.html

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Fwd: Re: [E-voting] "Black box" irregularities in the 
House of Representatives?]
Date: 	Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:33:13 +0100
From: 	Fergal Daly <fergald at gmail.com>
Reply-To: 	fergal at esatclear.ie
To: 	Craig Burton <caburt at alphalink.com.au>
CC: 	e-voting at lists.stdlib.net
References: 	<42ED7FB8.3020605 at alphalink.com.au>



First off, the original story was not an election it was a vote in the
House of Representatives so running it again would probably have
produced the same answer (assuming votes are counted correctly) but
apart form that I know of no system that works like you suggest.
There's usually some tie-breaker, for example a person who only votes
in the case of a tie. In the Irish parliament, that's the Ceann
Comhairle in the UK I think it's the Speaker of the House and they're
both expected to vote with the goverment. Elections in Ireland have
frequently been won by a handful of votes or even just 1 vote. I have
a feeling the returning officer only votes if there's a tie but I'm
not sure.

I don't think you'll find a single public political system where
something can't win by just a single vote,

F

On 8/1/05, Craig Burton <caburt at alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>  I would have thought any important election would require a winning margin
> of error of, say, 1%.  If the tally falls within this, its a draw.  Do some
> more politicing and run it again.  
>  It's a procedural issue, right?
>  
>  -------- Original Message -------- 
>  Subject: Re: [E-voting] "Black box" irregularities in the House of
> Representatives? 
>  Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:24:37 +0100 
>  From: Fergal Daly <fergald at gmail.com> 
>  Reply-To: fergal at esatclear.ie 
>  To: tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie 
>  CC: e-voting at lists.stdlib.net 
>  References: <42ECF8B0.5070600 at eircom.net>
> <200507312211.51498.tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> 
>  
>  
> On 7/31/05, Timothy Murphy <tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
> > On Sun 31 Jul 2005 17:13, Catherine Ansbro wrote:
> > > A major US int'l trade agreement just passed by 1 vote (CAFTA). And
> > > guess what. One guy claims his vote was not recorded correctly. Even
> > > though he objected at the time, the law has still passed.
> > 
> > I realise this is not a very popular view on this list,
> > but if an issue is that closely balanced,
> > I don't think it matters too much if it goes the wrong way.
> 
> 215 vs 217
> 
> Kerry vs Bush was 50.7 vs 48.2. another closely balanced issue that
> didn't much matter?
> 
> F
> 
> _______________________________________________
> E-voting mailing list
> E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
> http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005
> 
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> E-voting mailing list
> E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
> http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
> 
>



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.stdlib.net/pipermail/e-voting/attachments/20050801/f5e2919f/attachment.htm


More information about the E-voting mailing list