"Fractal Geometry of Presidential Election"
Tomoyuki Tanaka
i am with Warren Chrstopher in supporting a "full, fair, and
accurate" count of the votes.
it seems recounting in Oregon resulted in a victory for Gore.
in several counties in Florida hand-reconting is expected to
result in more votes for Gore.
in general, the more carefully we count, the more votes Gore
is discovered to have won.
... which reminds of the opening chapter of Mandelbrot's book
with the question "how long is the coastline of England"?
(it all depends on how finely you measure it.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
was: Re: (law school) Bush is dumber than Quayle? cocaine arrest
>
> Dear Larry Flynt: where are you to dig up dirt on the
> evil Republican when we need you most?
>
> earlier in a similar thread:
> Bush 3 arrests, Cheney 2 arrests, Laura 1 homicide
> George P. Bush 1 arrest for burglary?
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> D.R.Hofstadter: "alien" "inscrutable" "Oriental mind"
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> in "Metamagical Themas" (1985) Hofstadter self-righteously
>> preached nonsexist language (word choices, etc) with
>> hypersensitivity.
>>
>> in "Le Ton beau de Marot" (1997) Hofstadter casually makes
>> fun of Asians with the phrases such as
>> "inscrutable" "the Oriental mind" and other outdated
>> (and inherently racist) stereotypes.
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> from Douglas Hofstadter's book "Le Ton beau de Marot" (1997)
>
> "Could it be that the very idea of transculturation
> itself is a Western one, and strikes the Oriental mind
> as alien?" (Page 148)
>
> "By virtue of being overly Oriental, it would be
> extraordinarily disorienting!" (Page 149)
>
> have you read another book that's published in the last 20
> years or so that uses the words like "inscrutable" and "the
> Oriental mind" (or other racist stereotypes) to make fun of
> Asians?
>
> if so, could you let me know?
> i'm esp. interested in books by non-comedians.
>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>> NYT's review article of Douglas Hofstadter's book "Le
>> Ton beau de Marot"
>> http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/07/20/reviews/970720.20altert.html
>> (Prof. Alter, using lenient language, points out
>> Hofstadter's superficial understanding of literature
>> and translation.)
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Averill
"Tomoyuki Tanaka" <tan...@web1.calweb.com> wrote in message
news:3a0cc01a$1...@news3.calweb.com...
>
> i am with Warren Chrstopher in supporting a "full, fair, and
> accurate" count of the votes.
>
> it seems recounting in Oregon resulted in a victory for Gore.
> in several counties in Florida hand-reconting is expected to
> result in more votes for Gore.
>
> in general, the more carefully we count, the more votes Gore
> is discovered to have won.
Fine, but what makes you think the hand count is more accurate? Last I
heard, they were holding ballots up to the light to see whether the
punch-holes might be just dented instead of being punched all the way
through. Suppose they were -- then what? And they had dozens of volunteers
just at the one precinct they showed on TV. What are the chances that none
of these people will make a mistake?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tomoyuki Tanaka
was: Re: "Fractal Geometry of Presidential Election"
In article <3a0dd...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
Andy Averill <andya at lisco dot com> wrote:
>
>> i am with Warren Chrstopher in supporting a "full, fair, and
>> accurate" count of the votes.
>>
>> [...]
>
>Fine, but what makes you think the hand count is more accurate?
please look at the following article.
the parts i edited out contains why Bush (and others) supported
hand count.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001111/el/eln_bush_texas_recounts_1.html
Saturday November 11 7:16 PM ET
Bush Signed Recount Rule in Texas
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Contrary to his presidential campaign's
argument today, Gov. George W. Bush (news - web sites) three
years ago signed legislation into law in Texas that said a
manual recount is preferred to an electronic machine recount
in determining close elections.
[...]
James Baker [said stupid, hypocritical stuff.]
Democrats quickly resurrected Bush's decision in 1997 in
Texas to sign House Bill 331 into law. It declares that in
Texas ``a manual recount shall be conducted in preference to
an electronic recount.''
[...]
Richard Heathfield
>
> was: Re: "Fractal Geometry of Presidential Election"
>
>
> Bush Signed Recount Rule in Texas
>
> AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Contrary to his presidential campaign's
> argument today, Gov. George W. Bush (news - web sites) three
> years ago signed legislation into law in Texas that said a
> manual recount is preferred to an electronic machine recount
> in determining close elections.
>
> [...]
> James Baker [said stupid, hypocritical stuff.]
>
> Democrats quickly resurrected Bush's decision in 1997 in
> Texas to sign House Bill 331 into law. It declares that in
> Texas ``a manual recount shall be conducted in preference to
> an electronic recount.''
>
> [...]
Sorry, guys, and I know it's OT, but I get terribly confused by all
this, and I have some questions:
(a) which one is the Democrat?
(b) hasn't Bush already been President, about ten years ago?
(c) of the two parties, which one is the fascist right-wing bunch of
mindless incompetents, and which one the communist left-wing bunch of
mindless incompetents? (I'm used to calling these The Conservative Party
and The Labour Party, respectively.)
(d) has anyone in the USA yet discovered that 95% of the world's
population doesn't give a damn about local internal USA affairs, and
believes that discussion of them should be restricted to national,
rather than international, newsgroups?
(e) why is the sky blue? (Hey, that one's bound to be topical
somewhere... Rayleigh scattering, guys, Rayleigh scattering)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
Matthew T. Russotto
Tomoyuki Tanaka <tan...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
}
} i am with Warren Chrstopher in supporting a "full, fair, and
} accurate" count of the votes.
}
} in several counties in Florida hand-reconting is expected to
} result in more votes for Gore.
}
} in general, the more carefully we count, the more votes Gore
} is discovered to have won.
Except in New Mexico.
There's an interesting, but non-fractal, effect here. The recounts tend
to result in more votes being discovered, not less. This means that
even if there were no bias in the recount towards a particular
candidate, if you do recounts only in areas favoring a particular
candidate, you increase the chance of that candidate winning.
Further, if you do recounts only in states favoring a candidate, you
increase the chance of his opponent winning. Therefore it is in
Gore's best interest to do recounts in Democratic areas of Republican
states, and in Bush's best interest to do the opposite.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew T. Russotto
Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
}Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:
}
}Sorry, guys, and I know it's OT, but I get terribly confused by all
}this, and I have some questions:
}
}(a) which one is the Democrat?
Gore -- he's the one who invented the internet.
}(b) hasn't Bush already been President, about ten years ago?
Naa, Bush just _looks_ like his dad.
}(c) of the two parties, which one is the fascist right-wing bunch of
}mindless incompetents, and which one the communist left-wing bunch of
}mindless incompetents? (I'm used to calling these The Conservative Party
}and The Labour Party, respectively.)
That would be Reform and Green respectively. The Democrats and
Republicans are closer to the center, which means they manage to
embody the bad qualities of both.
}(d) has anyone in the USA yet discovered that 95% of the world's
}population doesn't give a damn about local internal USA affairs, and
}believes that discussion of them should be restricted to national,
}rather than international, newsgroups?
Actually, we know goddamn well this ain't the truth. If it were, your
newspapers wouldn't have headlines about our elections.
Richard Heathfield
>
> In article <3A0E726D...@eton.powernet.co.uk>,
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
> }Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:
> }
> }Sorry, guys, and I know it's OT, but I get terribly confused by all
> }this, and I have some questions:
> }
> }(a) which one is the Democrat?
>
> Gore -- he's the one who invented the internet.
Really? I thought he denied that and said he'd only "created" it. ;-)
> }(b) hasn't Bush already been President, about ten years ago?
>
> Naa, Bush just _looks_ like his dad.
Aha! Thanks.
<snip>
>
> }(d) has anyone in the USA yet discovered that 95% of the world's
> }population doesn't give a damn about local internal USA affairs, and
> }believes that discussion of them should be restricted to national,
> }rather than international, newsgroups?
>
> Actually, we know goddamn well this ain't the truth. If it were, your
> newspapers wouldn't have headlines about our elections.
That 95% I mentioned doesn't include journalists, obviously. ;-)
tund...@my-deja.com
tan...@web1.calweb.com (Tomoyuki Tanaka) wrote:
>
> was: Re: "Fractal Geometry of Presidential Election"
>
> Andy Averill <andya at lisco dot com> wrote:
> >
> >> i am with Warren Chrstopher in supporting a "full, fair, and
> >> accurate" count of the votes.
> >>
> >
> >Fine, but what makes you think the hand count is more accurate?
>
> please look at the following article.
>
> the parts i edited out contains why Bush (and others) supported
> hand count.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001111/el/eln_bush_texas_recounts_1.ht
ml
>
> Saturday November 11 7:16 PM ET
>
>
> AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Contrary to his presidential campaign's
> argument today, Gov. George W. Bush (news - web sites) three
> years ago signed legislation into law in Texas that said a
> manual recount is preferred to an electronic machine recount
> in determining close elections.
>
> [...]
> James Baker [said stupid, hypocritical stuff.]
>
> Democrats quickly resurrected Bush's decision in 1997 in
> Texas to sign House Bill 331 into law. It declares that in
> Texas ``a manual recount shall be conducted in preference to
> an electronic recount.''
>
> [...]
>
the ballots in one county alone had to be discarded. Some type of
investigation should be done in order to figure out why there is such a
discrepency in voting for the presidential candidate.
Am I mistaken or did Bush's campaign group ask for an injunction to
stop the manual hand count. If I am correct I find it very interesting
that now Bush has a different position from when he signed the
legislation. I suppose he never intended to be on a possible losing
end when he signed that House Bill.
Now it is time to sit back and watch.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Glenn C. Rhoads
Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> was: Re: "Fractal Geometry of Presidential Election"
>>
>>
>> Bush Signed Recount Rule in Texas
>>
>> AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Contrary to his presidential campaign's
>> argument today, Gov. George W. Bush (news - web sites) three
>> years ago signed legislation into law in Texas that said a
>> manual recount is preferred to an electronic machine recount
>> in determining close elections.
>>
>> [...]
>> James Baker [said stupid, hypocritical stuff.]
>>
>> Democrats quickly resurrected Bush's decision in 1997 in
>> Texas to sign House Bill 331 into law. It declares that in
>> Texas ``a manual recount shall be conducted in preference to
>> an electronic recount.''
>>
>> [...]
Why don't the Democrats insist on a manual recount for the *entire*
state of Florida instead of for just a few heavily democratic
counties where any uncounted ballots are more likely to favor
their candidate. Neither party has a lock on hypocrisy.
I tend to take anything emanating from either the Bush or Gore
camps with a grain of salt.
> Sorry, guys, and I know it's OT, but I get terribly confused by all
> this, and I have some questions:
>
> (a) which one is the Democrat?
Al Gore
> (b) hasn't Bush already been President, about ten years ago?
Same name but different person. The George Bush that was
President from 1988--1992 is the Republican candidate's father.
> (c) of the two parties, which one is the fascist right-wing bunch of
> mindless incompetents, and which one the communist left-wing bunch of
> mindless incompetents? (I'm used to calling these The Conservative
Party
> and The Labour Party, respectively.)
The Republicans are the conservative party and
the Democrats are the liberal party (or Labour Party in
the U.K. terminology)
> (d) has anyone in the USA yet discovered that 95% of the world's
> population doesn't give a damn about local internal USA affairs, and
> believes that discussion of them should be restricted to national,
> rather than international, newsgroups?
If the shoe were on the other foot, I believe those complaining
would act pretty much the same way.
You say you don't give a damn and you show enough interest to
ask questions about it.
> (e) why is the sky blue? (Hey, that one's bound to be topical
> somewhere... Rayleigh scattering, guys, Rayleigh scattering)
Rich Grise
was next: Browne, Nader, Robertson, or that other guy, should be
installed as president. Hell, even Jesse Ventura would make a better
president than either of those Republicrats.
Cheers!
Rich
> There's an interesting, but non-fractal, effect here. The recounts tend
> to result in more votes being discovered, not less. This means that
> even if there were no bias in the recount towards a particular
> candidate, if you do recounts only in areas favoring a particular
> candidate, you increase the chance of that candidate winning.
> Further, if you do recounts only in states favoring a candidate, you
> increase the chance of his opponent winning. Therefore it is in
> Gore's best interest to do recounts in Democratic areas of Republican
> states, and in Bush's best interest to do the opposite.
Rich Grise
> this, and I have some questions:
>
> (a) which one is the Democrat?
Admittedly, it's hard to tell, but I think it's Al "Tongue-Your-Wife
-On-National-TV" Gore.
> (b) hasn't Bush already been President, about ten years ago?
That was his dad, which is why he's George W.
> (c) of the two parties, which one is the fascist right-wing bunch of
> mindless incompetents, and which one the communist left-wing bunch of
> mindless incompetents? (I'm used to calling these The Conservative Party
> and The Labour Party, respectively.)
Ostensibly, the republicans are the fascists and the democrats are
the communists, but in the final analysis, it doesn't make much
difference. They're all the ruling party, which those of us who
have actually glanced at history realize has happened before. God
help us!
> (d) has anyone in the USA yet discovered that 95% of the world's
> population doesn't give a damn about local internal USA affairs, and
> believes that discussion of them should be restricted to national,
> rather than international, newsgroups?
Nah. ;-}
> (e) why is the sky blue? (Hey, that one's bound to be topical
> somewhere... Rayleigh scattering, guys, Rayleigh scattering)
No, That's _HOW_ the sky's blue. Just like I can tell you _HOW_
rainbows form, and _HOW_ apples are red (or yellow or green or
golden) and oranges are usually orange, but as to _WHY_, we're
getting into a whole nother level of metaphilosophy.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield
Cheers!
Rich
Earle Jones
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue."
*
You .sig line is a quote from one of the wackiest of all presidential
candidates: Barry Goldwater.
He was soundly defeated by Democrat Lyndon Johnson because people looked
at Goldwater as a dangerous "hawk".
Then Johnson led us into the worst situation in American history: The
Viet Nam war.
Strange business -- these American elections.
earle
*
Charles Bryant
>> is discovered to have won.
>
>heard, they were holding ballots up to the light to see whether the
>punch-holes might be just dented instead of being punched all the way
>through. Suppose they were -- then what? And they had dozens of volunteers
>just at the one precinct they showed on TV. What are the chances that none
>of these people will make a mistake?
People make mistakes, but when they're concentrating on an important
matter like this they won't make consistent mistakes, so overall they
balance out. If the result is very close, further manual re-counts
will involve different mistakes, so the true count can be gradually
approached, even if it can never be perfectly known. However if an
automated system makes mistakes it's more likely to be the same
mistake every time, resulting in a bias which favours one candidate.
The problem with people isn't accuracy, but speed and honesty.
Honesty can be fixed by doing the counting openly with several people
checking each other's work (which also greatly improves the accuracy
of each count), but nothing much can be done about speed.
--
Eppur si muove
Richard Heathfield
>
> In article <3A0E726D...@eton.powernet.co.uk>,
> Richard Heathfield <bin...@eton.powernet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote:
> >>
>
> > Sorry, guys, and I know it's OT, but I get terribly confused by all
> > this, and I have some questions:
> >
> > (a) which one is the Democrat?
>
Well, this one was a serious question.
> > (b) hasn't Bush already been President, about ten years ago?
>
> Same name but different person. The George Bush that was
> President from 1988--1992 is the Republican candidate's father.
This one wasn't. I'd sorted this one out about six months ago. A little
mild poke in the American collective rib, there.
> > (c) of the two parties, which one is the fascist right-wing bunch of
> > mindless incompetents, and which one the communist left-wing bunch of
> > mindless incompetents? (I'm used to calling these The Conservative
> Party
> > and The Labour Party, respectively.)
>
> The Republicans are the conservative party and
> the Democrats are the liberal party (or Labour Party in
> the U.K. terminology)
Despite the tone, this, too, was a serious question.
>
> > (d) has anyone in the USA yet discovered that 95% of the world's
> > population doesn't give a damn about local internal USA affairs, and
> > believes that discussion of them should be restricted to national,
> > rather than international, newsgroups?
This wasn't a serious question at all. I know damn well the answer's no.
> If the shoe were on the other foot, I believe those complaining
> would act pretty much the same way.
Well, we'll find out in a year or so, won't we?
> You say you don't give a damn and you show enough interest to
> ask questions about it.
<grin> The moment was ripe to sort out (c) once and for all. (a) is
irrelevant, (b) was a joke question anyway, and (d) has been answered
very nicely indeed already, thank you very much.
OmegaMan
>
> Why don't the Democrats insist on a manual recount for the *entire*
> state of Florida instead of for just a few heavily democratic
> counties where any uncounted ballots are more likely to favor
> their candidate.
The Democrats did make that offer. The Bush camp refused.
> Neither party has a lock on hypocrisy.
OTOH, the Republicans do come off as more arrogant,
like they were owed the election.
OmegaMan
>
> I think they both belong in jail, for election tampering, and whoever
> was next: Browne, Nader, Robertson, or that other guy, should be
> installed as president. Hell, even Jesse Ventura would make a better
> president than either of those Republicrats.
I think they ought to just leave Bill Clinton in.
Glenn C. Rhoads
OmegaMan <omega...@qwest.net> wrote:
> "Glenn C. Rhoads" wrote:
>
>> Why don't the Democrats insist on a manual recount for the *entire*
>> state of Florida instead of for just a few heavily democratic
>> counties where any uncounted ballots are more likely to favor
>> their candidate.
>
> The Democrats did make that offer. The Bush camp refused.
But they made that offer *after* the 72-hour deadline had
expired. A statewide hand recount would have been *illegal*.
Another good reason for refusing is that Bush had very little
change of losing the recount. If you are going to win under
the current rules, then why agree to change them?
Bush could have followed suit and insisted on a hand recount
of the predominantly Republican counties but instead chose
to let the statewide recount go through using the same rules
for every district -- i.e. do the recount in the fair and
usual manner.
Unfortunately, it now appears that Bush is going to have to
go to federal court to get a fair result. I don't expect
the Florida Supreme Court, made up entirely of Democrats,
to rule against Gore. It keeps going on and on ...
>> Neither party has a lock on hypocrisy.
>
> OTOH, the Republicans do come off as more arrogant,
> like they were owed the election.
That's true but only because Bush *won* the election. Bush won
the initial count and now he has won the statewide recount by
around 900 votes (the recount that uses the same rules for all
districts). It was clear since two days after the election that
Gore had very little chance of winning the recount since Bush
was ahead in the initial count and since there were some yet to be
counted overseas ballots which for decades have gone heavily for
the Republican candidate. IMO, the smart play for Gore would
have been to bow out "for the good of the country." Then when he
runs for President in four years, he would have had an indistructible
mantra of decency that would have made him extremely difficult to
beat. Instead of grabbing the high ground; ... well you know the
current mess. Of course I'm not so convinced that Bush would have
acted any differently had their situations been reversed. And no
I do not buy the argument that Bush is the one who should have
stepped down under the current situation. Nobody wins an election
and then concedes defeat; the loser is the one who is supposed to
concede.
Cheers,
robe...@my-deja.com
but look at a car crash' way that we find American soap operas
interesting. While it might not be true that 95% of the world aren't
interested in 'provincal' politics of our former colonies what made any
of you think more people might be interested in a detailed discussion of
our fomrer currency denominations?
>
> > (d) has anyone in the USA yet discovered that 95% of the world's
> > population doesn't give a damn about local internal USA affairs, and
> > believes that discussion of them should be restricted to national,
> > rather than international, newsgroups?
>
> If the shoe were on the other foot, I believe those complaining
> would act pretty much the same way.
>
> You say you don't give a damn and you show enough interest to
> ask questions about it.
>
>
Earle Jones
<rhoa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A16F089...@qwest.net>,
> OmegaMan <omega...@qwest.net> wrote:
> > "Glenn C. Rhoads" wrote:
> >
[...]
> Unfortunately, it now appears that Bush is going to have to
> go to federal court to get a fair result. I don't expect
> the Florida Supreme Court, made up entirely of Democrats,
> to rule against Gore.
*
If the Florida Supreme Court makes a ruling one way or the other, what
could be the grounds to take the case higher? Unless moral turpitude or
fraud on the part of the judges is claimed, the federal court will stay
out of it.
Elections are state matters.
earle
*
Earle Jones
> In article <3A16F089...@qwest.net>,
> OmegaMan <omega...@qwest.net> wrote:
> > "Glenn C. Rhoads" wrote:
[...]
> >> Neither party has a lock on hypocrisy.
> >
> > OTOH, the Republicans do come off as more arrogant,
> > like they were owed the election.
>
> That's true but only because Bush *won* the election...
*
Nope. The outcome of the election has not been determined yet.
earle
*
Rich Grise
British currency denominations.
Or puzzles, of course! :-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
...
> Steady on! Puzzles are topical.
>
> To the OP: actually, you're right to moan at me. I was obviously in a
> "grumpy Englishman" mood that day (as I am every day!). Both the US
> election and former UK currencies are topical here (rec.puzzles) in at
> least one sense, for the simple reason that ALL general knowledge is
> grist to the puzzler's mill. But that way (everything's on topic because
> everything's general knowledge) madness lies. Better to slap the wrist
> of everyone who's posted to this thread, including me.
>
> Ow!
Oh, you Scuffty Brits. "Spank me! Spank me!"
Cheers!
Rich
Richard Heathfield
>
> robe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > British people find American politics interesting in that 'can't help
> > but look at a car crash' way that we find American soap operas
> > interesting. While it might not be true that 95% of the world aren't
> > interested in 'provincal' politics of our former colonies what made any
> > of you think more people might be interested in a detailed discussion of
> > our fomrer currency denominations?
>
> British currency denominations.
>
> Or puzzles, of course! :-)
Steady on! Puzzles are topical.
To the OP: actually, you're right to moan at me. I was obviously in a
"grumpy Englishman" mood that day (as I am every day!). Both the US
election and former UK currencies are topical here (rec.puzzles) in at
least one sense, for the simple reason that ALL general knowledge is
grist to the puzzler's mill. But that way (everything's on topic because
everything's general knowledge) madness lies. Better to slap the wrist
of everyone who's posted to this thread, including me.
Ow!
--
Glenn C. Rhoads
Earle Jones <edj...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
> In article <8v9k97$1es$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Glenn C. Rhoads
> <rhoa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <3A16F089...@qwest.net>,
>> OmegaMan <omega...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>> "Glenn C. Rhoads" wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> go to federal court to get a fair result. I don't expect
>> the Florida Supreme Court, made up entirely of Democrats,
>> to rule against Gore.
> If the Florida Supreme Court makes a ruling one way or the other, what
> could be the grounds to take the case higher? Unless moral turpitude
> or fraud on the part of the judges is claimed, the federal court will
> stay out of it.
They could claim the Florida election laws are unconstitutional.
The Bush lawyers could appeal on the basis that the selected
recounts allowed under Florida state law are a violation of the
14'th amendment's equal protection provision.
One thing that came out in today's court arguments is that Florida
law allows the loser to contest the outcome after the vote has
been certified. So no matter which way the Florida Supreme Court
rules, it is not necessarily the final legal word though the
ruling will deal a major blow to one side or the other.
Our legal system seems to have only one speed -- slow.
> Elections are state matters.
That is the established doctrine but the current situation is
unprecendented in the respect that a single state is effecting
a national election.
Glenn C. Rhoads
Earle Jones <edj...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
> In article <8v9k97$1es$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Glenn C. Rhoads
> <rhoa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> Neither party has a lock on hypocrisy.
>>> OTOH, the Republicans do come off as more arrogant,
>>> like they were owed the election.
>> That's true but only because Bush *won* the election...
> *
> Nope. The outcome of the election has not been determined yet.
That's precisely my point. No winner has been officially declared
despite the fact that Bush won the election. I didn't vote for
Bush but he won it fair and square. You of course are entitled
to your own opinion.
Since this is off topic, I would rather just see this whole thread
die -- yes, I know I'm as guilty as everybody else who contributed
so shoot me! :-)
P.G.Hamer
> i am with Warren Chrstopher in supporting a "full, fair, and
> accurate" count of the votes.
>
> it seems recounting in Oregon resulted in a victory for Gore.
> in several counties in Florida hand-reconting is expected to
> result in more votes for Gore.
>
> in general, the more carefully we count, the more votes Gore
> is discovered to have won.
I firmly believe that if a proper statistical correction was made for
either mis-cast or double votes caused by the mis-design of the
butterfly ballot paper then Gore would win.
However the fact that Gore is gaining from recounts in pro-Gore
constituencies does not seems adequate grounds to believe that a
total recount would favour Gore. Imperfectly punched holes should
reflect similar voter preferences to perfectly punched holes; pro-Gore
in pro-Gore constituencies, pro-Bush in pro-Bush constituencies.
[Or a 50:50 split if a genuine no-punch is misread by unbiased counters.]
> ... which reminds of the opening chapter of Mandelbrot's book
> with the question "how long is the coastline of England"?
>
> (it all depends on how finely you measure it.)
There was a case where two countries published wildly different lengths
for their common border. Look like the larger country used a bigger map,
and hence measured on a courser scale. [I hope it's not an urban legend.]
Peter