Fwd: Can't win by margin less than the Rate Of Error

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 11:23:51 CST

This person would appreciate some response if you feel inclined.
Thank you. Kathy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lee Mcclure <eclectix@earthlink.net>
Date: Nov 29, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: Can't win by margin less than the Rate Of Error
To: kathy@uscountvotes.org

 Dear Kathy Dopp,
 I'm not a statistician. But it seems really important that:

 No candidate can win an election by a margin that is less than the
Rate of Error.

 In all the press coverage of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential
elections, I've never heard this subject dealt with.

 Maybe if you (or someone you could recommend) could refine this
argument in proper statistical terms, it could then get some press
coverage.... (?)
 I do volunteer work for a satellite TV news program: INN World
Report. I could definitely help get it covered by INN.

 Below is my way of explaining it.
 Thank you for your time and consideration,
 Lee McClure

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 Fraudulent sophistry should be a felony

 Any politician winning by a margin less than the Rate Of Error is a
total fraud, and either a recount or whole new election should be
mandatory. "Canvassing" is the processes of recounting votes in
enough districts in a state in order to establish the percent of votes
that were incorrectly recorded for any reason. The canvassing can
then be extrapolated and the total number of incorrectly recorded
votes can be established for the whole state or nation. The Error
Rate is expressed in a plus-or-minus percentage, like: 0.1%

 If the total Presidential votes in year 2000 in Florida was
22,000,000 and the Error Rate was 0.1%, then a candidate would have
to win by more than 22,000 votes. In a dead heat both candidates
would have received 11,000,000 votes. Factoring in the Error Rate, it
means that the number 11,000,000 could actually be a minimum of
10,978,000 or a maximum of 11,022,000. In order to be statistically
sure that one candidate won, he or she would have to receive
11,022,001 votes. The Error Rate means this number (11,022,001) could
be as little as 11,000,001 or as much as 11,044,001 votes.

     If I remember accurately, Bush beat Gore in Florida by 563 votes.
 If the Error Rate was 0.1%, that election should have been declared
STATISTICALY MEANINGLESS. It should be a felonious crime to declare a
candidate the winner, if he or she won by a margin less than the Error

        If the total vote count in Florida in year 2000 was
22,000,000, then in order for Bush to accurately win by 563 votes, the
Error Rate would have to be approximately 0.002%. Put another way,
there would have to be only one (1) incorrectly recorded vote in every
39,076 votes counted (= 22,000,000 563).

        To say Bush won by 563 votes is an absolute lie. It's like
looking at the sweep-second-hand on a wristwatch and saying I'll tell
you when 12.0005 seconds have past. If you know you cannot accurately
see with enough precision for this number, then you are actively
deceiving and lying. In an election this type of knowing dishonesty
should be a felony.

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Nov 30 23:17:17 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 23:17:19 CST