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

Dr J Pelan J.Pelan at gatsby.ucl.ac.uk
Thu Jan 24 16:29:43 GMT 2008


On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Fergus O'Rourke wrote:

> Imagine my surprise (and relief) when I read:

Not wishing to labour the point too much, but from what do you derive 
relief ? There is as yet nothing to see here proven by rational 
consideration. What is interesting to note is that you have avoided 
mentioning the widely circulated explanation for the apparent correlation, 
namely the urban/rural split.

-----

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/11/experts_skeptical_of_nh_ballot_count_conspiracy_theory/http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/11/experts_skeptical_of_nh_ballot_count_conspiracy_theory/

"If you do a little more statistical digging, you find out that this isn't 
proving what they think it's proving. It's a pattern that's been around 
for years," he said

[snip]

"We see those patterns in the vote, we see those patterns in the exit 
poll. It's not surprising we'd see those patterns when we looked at the 
types of equipment used because it's not randomly assigned, there are 
reasons why certain towns use paper ballots and certain cities use 
machines," Lenski said.

-- 
John P.



More information about the E-voting mailing list