Re: Shamos Rebuttal, Draft 2

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 10:16:36 CDT

On May 4, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:

> At 9:11 PM -0700 5/4/05, Ron Crane wrote:
>>> 14. End of Section 5.
>>>
>>> Check out http://www.acm.org/usacm/Issues/EVoting.htm for a good
>>> rebuttal.
>>>
>>> Also the member opinion poll at
>>> http://www.acm.org/usacm/weblog/index.php?p=73
>>>
>>> 86.38% strongly agreed with:
>>>
>>> "ACM's proposed policy position concludes that due to the risks and
>>> vulnerabilities inherent in many voting systems in use today -
>>> particularly computer-based electronic voting systems - it is
>>> important that physical records (e.g., paper) are maintained to
>>> ensure that a vote has been cast accurately and that a meaningful
>>> physical record of a vote exists."
>>>
>>> I'd recommend getting an update on the number of signers at Verified
>>> Voting.org by category. They no longer have the numbers (or lists)
>>> on their website.
>>
>> I don't want to get into a war of numbers here. It's sufficient to
>> point out his sophistic math and the fact that he provides no
>> citations to support his proposition about "the other 9,999 out of
>> 10,000".
>
> I disagree. You have direct evidence that he's wrong in my cite.

I have direct evidence of a poll conducted without proper statistical
controls. Here's what ACM says about its methodology:

Prior to approving the statement, ACM engaged its membership, bringing
the issue to their attention and soliciting their feedback in an online
poll to gauge their support for the statement. Of the nearly 4,600
members from around the world who shared their opinions, 95 percent
indicated their agreement with the statement.

This is a classic "those who are interested respond" poll. While it's
interesting and suggestive, I am uncomfortable with citing it, since it
wasn't properly conducted (i.e. via random sampling). I hope ACM will
go hire Zogby et al to do a real one. That would be valuable.

>>> Footnote 54, Also cite
>>> http://www.electoral-vote.com/2004/info/graph.html
>>
>> That's not so easy to interpret, and, because of the Electoral
>> College's amplifying effects, is actually not a good example of the
>> phenomenon I'm trying to illustrate.
>
> How about http://www.electoral-vote.com/2004/info/state-graphs.html
> instead?

That's a good one. I'll add it.

-R

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:20 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT