[E-voting] Interesting ....
sitecom at tinet.ie
Tue Jan 22 16:23:21 GMT 2008
Dr J Pelan <J.Pelan at gatsby.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>> Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
>> Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
>> Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
>> Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
>> The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to
>> say the least." (Bradblog)
> Seeing patterns or coincidences in data sets without any rational
> consideration of their likely correlation, or lack thereof, is pure
> numerology. How can assertions like 'highly unusual' and 'remarkable'
> be justified without some quantification of a chance occurrence ?
> In any case, reporting stories many times removed from the original
> source can lead to delays or distortion and indeed a check of the EDA
> shows that their data was updated a week ago and the so-called
> 'remarkable' coincidence subsequently disappeared - more votes were
> optically scanned than first thought.
Oh dear ! I shall have to have a word with Herr Lenz.
(Not just law stuff)
More information about the E-voting