[E-voting] Any statisticians subscribed? Looking for a tipping point.

Catherine Ansbro cansbro at eircom.net
Fri Sep 9 01:16:50 IST 2005


Tim's comment  about "good voters" brings a smile to my face.  And it 
raises some interesting questions.

Brian, did you mean "good votes" as in ones that were accurately 
recorded so as to reflect the voter's intent? 

These would be randomly distributed only if you meant "bad votes" to be 
ones that were spoilt (accidentally or deliberately--but not with 
fraudulent intent).  Though it's possible that because of 
well-disciplined vote management FF (and possibly FG) votes would get 
statistically more than their share of "bad votes" through uninformed or 
intimated voters putting 2 or 3 #1 votes for the same party and thereby 
spoiling their vote accidentally (or through being intimidated and not 
wanting to express a preference among their promised #1 votes).

One could also debate whether deliberately spoiled votes are more likely 
to show up for one party or parties more than another.  I think it is 
unlikely that deliberately spoiled votes would be distributed randomly, 
since it's more likely that a spoiled vote be a reflection on whoever 
happens to be in power (locally? nationally?) at a particular point in 
time or in a particular local area.

Catherine


Timothy Murphy wrote:

>On Thu 08 Sep 2005 15:07, Brian O'Byrne wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Assume first that the 'bad' votes are randomly distributed. Does the
>>reduction in accuracy affect the result?
>>    
>>
>
>In a democracy there is no such thing as good voters and bad voters.
>There are just voters.
>
>  
>




More information about the E-voting mailing list