Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
The Astute Blogger
Asymmeterical Information
B-Town Blog Boys
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
Blogs for Bush
Boots and Sabers
The Bully Pulpit
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
Democracy Project
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
Eye of the Storm
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
Functional, if not decorative
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon blog
Judicious Asininity
Just On The Other Side
The Kudzu Files
Let's Try Freedom
Liberty Father
Life and Law
Locke, or Demosthenes?
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
Mungowitz End
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
Neophyte Pundit
New England Republican
NewsHawk Daily
neWs Round-Up
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Peppermint Patty
John Pierce
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Power Politics
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
Pundit Heads
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
A Republican's Blog
The Review
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
Rooftop Report
The Sake of Argument
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
Shaking Spears
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Some Great Reward
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
Stuff about
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tobacco Road Fogey
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Use The Forks!!
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
Winning Again!
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Non-Blogs Linking to PoliBlog: - Alabama Weblogs

AJC's 2004 Election Politics Sites and Blogs Campaign Finance
Welcome to World O' Blogs
Yahoo! Directory Political Weblogs
Young Elephant
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Another Way of Looking at the Voting Error Issue

By Steven Taylor @ 11:28 am

Basically, part of what I am getting at is this: since there will be error no matter what, the real question should be as follows. What will the estimated error be under the new system, and will the difference between the old error and the new system truly justify the setting aside of the time provisions for the recall as set down by the California state constitution?

Again, one might assume that the choice is between the potential loss of 40,000 or so votes and perfection, but it isn’t. The real choice is between the potential loss of 40,000-some vote and some smaller number. Again: there is vote-counting error in every election.

Filed under: US Politics

Click here to go to the main page.


  1. That’s the question.

    Comment by JohnC — Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 3:15 pm

  2. But when machines that appear to be more error prone are concentrated in high-percentage minority areas, as seems to be the case here, you have to admit that some anger and resentment could be justified, and that it would seem to be unfair and not equal treatment. There will always be some error, to be sure. But the distribution of error counts (no pun intended).

    Comment by Brett — Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 4:17 pm

  3. I would like to see the actual numbers.

    At any rate, Brett, the unfortunate truth is that regardless of the tech employed, the poor minority precincts will have higher error rates.

    And the irony is that in the Caltech-MIT study, electronic machines had similar error rates to punch-cards, athough, granted, they weren’t all touch-screens in the study.

    Optical scan ballots were the best, but they are considered less accessible by disabled voters…

    And, I do agree that the effort should be made to improve the tech-just not in the middle of an ongoing process.

    Comment by Steven — Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 8:13 pm

  4. And John, I really would like the answer to that question. Ultimately my guess is that we are talking about only a marginal increase in “fairness".

    Comment by Steven — Tuesday, September 16, 2003 @ 8:32 pm

  5. That’s what the courts are for. This isn’t something decided by popularity…

    Comment by JohnC — Wednesday, September 17, 2003 @ 11:18 am

  6. Steven:

    The numbers problem is an important one, to be sure. Still, how “marginal” does an improvement need to be in order to be justified? One that makes sure that 10,000 more votes are counted accurately? 5,000? 2,000? And what is the relationship between this number and the margin of victory?

    It’s a really hard question and one that does not admit of a fully “accurate” answer. One of the things that makes me angry about this debate, however, is that it too easy for folks to say that marginal improvements in fairness for other people are not worth the burden on them.

    Comment by Brett — Wednesday, September 17, 2003 @ 1:31 pm

  7. Brett,

    The exact number, and its relative nature to the overall pool, is key. And I am for fairness, but I question the degree to which this is even the real goal here.

    What frustrates me about these kinds of situations is that perceived injustice only becomes a point of contention as a means of thrawting an already ongoing process-this was the last of I think about a dozen attempts by various anti-recall groups to stop the process via the courts. It isn’t as if the injustice was so gross that felt the need, for example, to stop the usage of these machines in 2002.

    Comment by Steven — Wednesday, September 17, 2003 @ 2:05 pm

  8. Steven:

    I just reread your last comment, substituting “Bush’s attacks on the 2000 presidential election recounts” as the topic. ;-)

    More seriously, why should the number “relative to the overall pool” be the important one? Why not relative to the predicted margin of victory? And in general I still think that you haven’t answered the question: what number do you think would be fair? My impression is that it is an unanswerable question because the fairness here depends on the margin of victory, so in any close elections things are going to be contentious. That’s why at the very least it’s worthwhile to have at least an appearance of attempting to count as many votes as accurately as possible. And, again, if it’s your votes that have the possibility of being counted less rigorously, you’re going to be a lot more upset than if it’s the votes of your rivals. An unpleasant fact, but part and parcel of the whole uproar here.

    Comment by Brett — Thursday, September 18, 2003 @ 2:16 pm

  9. Of course, you did raise that question below! I guess you think it’s unanswerable, too. What consequences should one draw from the unanswerability of the question? That’s the interesting problem. . .

    Comment by Brett — Thursday, September 18, 2003 @ 2:20 pm

  10. Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2004 @ 3:30 pm

RSS feed for these comments.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>



Take a Look At This!
  • Tabloid News
  • Word of The Day
  • Chronograph Watches
  • Office Shredders
  • Cash Registers
  • Ricoh Fax Machines
  • IBM Typewriters
  • Copy Machines
  • UNIX Consulting
  • Web Design

Visitors Since 2/15/03

Powered by WordPress