[E-voting] Re:Interesting ....

Fergus O'Rourke sitecom at tinet.ie
Tue Jan 22 21:36:08 GMT 2008

Earlier I wrote that
>> Dr J Pelan <J.Pelan at gatsby.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>   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)
>> [snip]
>>> 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
>>> website
>>> 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.
>>> http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/new_hampshire_2008_primary_analysis
>> Oh dear ! I shall have to have a word with Herr Lenz.

Well, before I did, I thought that I should read the linked update to which 
JP refers.

Imagine my surprise (and relief) when I read:

"While the actual difference between Obama and Clinton hand count and 
optical scan margins are not a mirror image of each other to four decimal 
places as we had initially believed*, the undeniable fact that Obama appears 
to have carried the hand-counted tally statewide, while Clinton carried the 
optical scan statewide tally -- by almost exactly opposite margins --  
remains a remarkable result. "

I am sticking with my word "interesting". I thought that the item would be 
relevant to the list and I still do, and I have no reason to reproach 

(Not just law stuff)

More information about the E-voting mailing list