Re: exit polls vs. election results

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 17:40:40 CDT

On May 17, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

> Ron Crane wrote:
>
>> The losing candidates don't always want to win (e.g., very arguably
>> Kerry in Ohio). And the public at large has an interest -- beyond
>> determining who won -- in whether there was cheating. Random Recounts
>> serve that interest better than TAR by a determined loser.
>>
>> -R
>
>
> And also look at Gore in FL in 2000. He targeted the punch card
> counties for recounts, when he would have Won the 2000 FL election if
> he had targeted the Op Scan counties in FL.
>
> Candidates don't always know. If it is not going to be random, it
> should be based on a statistical analysis of the election results.
>
> ( if the statistical data can be obtained, which is what US Count
> Votes' is attempting to do.)

Whatever the process, it has to be transparent, established before the
elections in which it is applied, and either (a) completely unbiased
(random) or (b) open to *all* partisan inputs, including those of any
member of the public. We cannot rely on the candidates to do the job.
Just off the cuff, I prefer publicly-witnessed random choice, since
it's easy for the public to understand and to verify, and it's not so
open to the exercise of discretion, and it's not so open to
manipulation via uneven (or unevenly-applied) bureaucratic obstacles,
such as application fees, etc.

-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 23:17:39 2005

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