Just for grins, why don’tcha take a gander at Article II, section 1, nolo.
Your retraction will be forthcoming, I assume?
I dunno, but I’d have baked a cake!
[sub]sorry, I had to do it. Every time I saw this thread it ran through my head…[/sub]
You seem to be presuming, that people who voted for (whomever) were thinking “Gee, this guy would be great, as long as we don’t experience a terrorist attack”.
Oddly enough, I feel that most people voted for the person they felt was best suited in general for the job, and without the codicile that “gee he’ll be great domestically but in the crapper internationally”. While we may have done a mental checklist (“I agree w/him on this but not so much on that”) I don’t think any of us would have voted for some one we thought would be an absolute boob in any one area (especially in a large area such as “international relations”. ) While you point out Gore’s experience in IR, even at the time the Bush supporters were saying “even if he isn’t experienced in that area, he’ll surround himself w/talent”. I don’t suspect for a moment that they would have changed their allegances if they’d known how quickly such things would be tested.
So, no, I don’t think the results would have largely changed had we known about th WTC. HOwever, if we’d known about how close it was etc., I suspect that some differences may have occured.
Interestingly, if you would look at his member profile, you will observe that december is an actuary. So I would venture to say that the answer to your question is “yes”.
minty green,
I can see more than a few of our regulars aren’t well versed in the nuances of argumentation.
Let’s give that a second look:
“If different voting values are constitutional, how can different voting standards be unconstitutional?”
And you attempt to discredit this by telling me that my situational ‘if’ is true? Hell, that is explicit in the statement. How could I be more clear?
The point is not that the Electoral College is unconstitutional. The point clearly is that different counting standards are not unConstitutional. Votes have been tabulated differently in every election held in this country. And if there is an Equal Protection issue with that, all Congressman, Senators, Governors, and Presidents are products of illegal elections.
Lisa,
Touche. Good point. But I am not, as of yet, convinced that the matter wasn’t decided before Olson and Tribe were even hired. Also, this info may or may not have been available to the Gore team back then.
Indeed. This is a little like a scientist releasing the outcome of an experiment (“I’ve achieved cold fusion”) without any account of the procedures involved.
Hadn’t realized they’d refused to release the work supporting their conclusions. Their credibility just went through the floor, in my eyes.
If there had been some knowledge a year ago that there would be a major terrorist action, President Clinton would have had to give some details as to who would be doing what, and how they were going to be stopped. No matter what, the “Wagging the dog” accusation would have been raised even more shrilly by the usual people. Net effect on the election: I think close to zero.
If the attack had actually occurred during the campaign, the “Rally 'round the flag” effect would have given Gore a walkover - the sentiment that it would be the worst possible time to have a change of command would take over instead.
Re the ballot-counting standards: Note that the full count in Florida, according to the law as it stood on Election Day, has never yet been performed, thanks to Bush’s success at getting the rules nullified after the game was played. There is no statewide count extant, nor can there ever be now, that reflects the county canvassing boards’ own interpretation of “clear intent of the voter” - the legal standard.
Yes, nolo, I do know what an actuary is. In fact, I’ve been one for 30 years. I’ve served as Chairman of the Examination Committee. Several of my papers have been required reading for actuarial trainees.
That’s one reason why I wish the Commission would release its statistical analysis. I’d like to review it myself.
I was thinking just the opposite. Don’t you think that some bonehead (probably from the Right) would have made Nader’s (Arab IIRC) heritage an issue? That might have made Nader seem even more beyond the pale than he already was thereby moving votes from him to Gore.
Then again that still might have been outweighed by the “Rebublicans = Strong on defense” argument.
“Different voting values” (your phrase) are constitutional because they’re explicitly provided for in the freaking Constitution. In contrast, “different voting standards” are not addressed at all all. The constitutionality or unconstitutionality of “different voting standards” has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitutionality of “different voting values.”
You might as well have said “If this fruit is an apple, how can another fruit not be an apple?” :wally
What a coincidence!?!? You’re an actuary now, are you, december? 30 whole years?
And, despite poor diction and grammar skills, you’re also a “skilled writer” now, too? Require reading… is that so? Remarkable. I’ve seen some boardie opportunists taking advantage of internet anonymity, but this must take the cake.
I must admit, I find odd your claim that the Commission did not release their methodology. First, I see it on the online report. Plain as day. (Be prepared to wait; they have the slowest site on the planet.) Second, if they didn’t, how did John Lott get his hands on it? Lott, of course, is the gifted yet intellectually dishonest statistician who suggested the counter-intuitive proposition of more guns=less crime. Lott was recruited by the two dissenters to obsfuscate the data and mask it as credible information. His “report” is included in the CRC report… In it, he attacks cross-sectional analysis as if there is another way to compare data from different counties and ignores the effect of voting technology by using time-series and by breakdowns according to the party affiliation by county.
In the Senate hearings, Senator Schumer asked “Were a greater percentage of black and Hispanic voters turned away than or didn’t get to vote than white voters?”
Lott sighed, swallowed a lump and dejectedly replied, “Yeah.” And that’s the real issue, isn’t it, in an election decided by less than 300 votes?
You are parrotting an allegation, but clearly you aren’t informed enough about it to even get it right. One lonely member of the eight-member panel accused her colleagues of “lying,” but wouldn’t elaborate much. The conservative press latched on to this, with little regard for honesty, just because it reinforces their viewpoints: John Leo, National Review, Human Events, et al… but even they weren’t altogether clear just what they were attacking… Or there is another possible reason why you were incorrectly led to believe the methodology wasn’t released. It wasn’t released when the initial draft was leaked to the press. The final draft is released and it is there.
BTW, give me a minute and I’ll change my profile… Hmmmm… what job should I choose? Dr. Scholl’s, foot doctor extraordinaire? Nah… J-Lo’s massuese? Hmmm…
minty green,
Perhaps you’ll see why the comparison is valid if you can explain to me the justification for different vote standards being an Equal Protection issue.
Pardon me, everyone, I’ll just be beating my head against a brick wall for a while. Much less painful than explaining the difference between apples and oranges to our little friend.
If you’re a lawyer, I don’t know how you survive, minty. You could’ve done any good on the LR sections given your “performances” in this thread.
Nolo I’m uncertain just what you mean by “their methodology.” I said the Commission hadn’t released their statistical analysis. That is, the actual formulas, assumptions, numbers and calculations. Can you supply a cite?
If I was wrong about the analysis being released, I’ll be the first to admit it. Furthermore, I’ll be grateful to you, nolo, because I want to review those calculations.
On the other hand, if the complete analysis has NOT been released, I hope you’ll be honorable enough to admit it.
P.S. I take your sarcasm about my actuarial background as a compliment. Apparently you have great respect for my profession.
Thanks to actually knowing what I’m talking about, I survive very well indeed. And I thank you for your touching concern.
Anybody wanna take bets on how long it takes poor little nolo to get his/her very first Pit thread?
december,
I believe you’ll find what you’re looking for right here:
http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/ltrpt.htm
The following might also be of interest to you:
http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/ap1.htm
http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/ap2.htm
Lott: http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/ap9.htm
Response: http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/stdraft1/ap10.htm
Thanks for the cites, nolo. Of course you noticed that they didn’t include the actual data, but they’re interesting nevertheless.
On page 3 of your first cite, note Lichtman’s confusion between “a strong correllation” and “statistically significant correllation.” I’ll take his word for the latter. But, R-Squared of .25 jumps out as being a weak correllation, not a strong one.
Note Lichtman’s inaccurate comment on the bottom of Page 3, “One obvious question is presented by this data – is there some other factor which better explains this disparity in ballot rejection rates? In short the answer is no.” Of course, he should have said, “In short, the answer is that I didn’t find one.”
That’s all for now…
Note that Lott says that he DID find factors which explained more of the disparity than race. Lott also complains that Lichtman didn’t release his efforts to find better explanitory factors, which leaves open the question of just how hard he tried.
Incidentally, I’m struck by how liberals are championing this report – a report that must be of great comfort to racists. “Federal study shows that Blacks don’t know how to vote properly!” Why are you happy about this?
Oh come now, december. Stop putting words in people’s mouths. There is another, far more likely explanation for all the spoiled ballots in those precincts, and you know perfectly well what it is.
R Squared is not a p value. It factors in how much of the data is variation is accounted for by a single variable or by multiple variables.
Considering the tremendous number of factors that could concievably effect spoilage, if race, by itself, accounts for 25% of the variation, I would say that is particularly alarming.
FYI, Lott uses a .10 level of significance, which should stand right out to anyone with even a college primer on statistics. Use of .10 is very rare, because it doesn’t grant much precision ie smaller differences are “statistically significant” than would be otherwise. You would expect .01 or even .001 as your alphas here - maybe even .05- but .10? How can that guy look himself in the face? He’s doctoring the books to achieve his own ends.
And even LOTT will not deny that black votes were at least three times as likely to be spoiled than white votes.
The response to Lott is very convincing to me; perhaps because he speaks in plain statistical language.
As for the last comment, :rolleyes: it is very clear from the report that technology is the primary culprit; not intelligence of various ethnic groups. Look at the charts; even heavily white counties with inferior technology suffer high spoilage rates.