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

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 17:22:25 CST

Lee's comments are a proposal. Nice idea, but people don't want to
vote multiple times on close races.

That's why Instant Runoff Voting is attractive to some; it eliminates
the need for a runoff election.

Besides, some believe that the computerized totals were fraudulently
changed based on a predicted loss amount. Some believe that this was
also the case for 2006, but that somehow the Democrats got more votes
than expected, so there wasn't enough fraud. So Lee's consideration
essentially misses the point under that scenario. A revote would
simply tell how much more fraud was needed (assuming there was any).

Best regards,

At 10:23 AM -0700 11/30/06, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>This person would appreciate some response if you feel inclined.
>Thank you. Kathy
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Lee Mcclure <>
>Date: Nov 29, 2006 9:37 PM
>Subject: Can't win by margin less than the Rate Of Error
> 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
> 212-566-2217
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