[EL] Statistical Revo[l]ting

Sat Mar 15 19:47:31 PDT 2008

Exactly.

The Florida primary results only became an issue when they were needed by the Clinton campaign.

Using a system of delegate selection that disfranchises most voters from making a choice is not a very good means to build a sense of efficacy or confidence in the political process.

Ronald Keith Gaddie
Professor of Political Science
The University of Oklahoma
455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
Norman, OK  73019-2001
Phone 405-325-4989
Fax 405-325-0718
E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
________________________________________
From: election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu [election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Round [tom.round at scu.edu.au]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:29 PM
To: Karen Beckwith; John Gideon; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Statistical Revo[l]ting

See Isaac Asimov's short story "Franchise", or GK Chesterton's "The Napoleon of Notting Hill", for an N of 1.0.

At 11:53 16/03/2008, Karen Beckwith wrote:

No generalizing from an N of one, please.

Cheers,
Karen Beckwith
Flora Stone Mather Professor
Department of Political Science
Case Western Reserve University

223 Mather House
11201 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7109 USA

Phone: (216) 368-4129
Fax: 216 368 4681
karen.beckwith at case.edu
www.case.edu/artsci/posc/beckwith.html<http://www.case.edu/artsci/posc/beckwith.html>

On Mar 15, 2008, at 8:23 PM, John Gideon wrote:

> This is the stupidest, most insensitive response to an idea put out for
> comment. Is this the way academics respond to ideas from other
> academics? If so, I am happy to have kept out of that community.
>
> Gaddie, Ronald K. wrote:
>> This is, in my expert opinion, the stupidest (most stupid) singularly
>> indefensible proposal I've heard to date.
>>
>> Ronald Keith Gaddie
>> Professor of Political Science
>> The University of Oklahoma
>> 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222
>> Norman, OK 73019-2001
>> Phone 405-325-4989
>> Fax 405-325-0718
>> E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu
>> http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1
>> ________________________________________
>> From: election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu
>> [election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Lorenzo
>> Hall [joehall at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:03 PM
>> To: Election Law
>> Subject: [EL] Fwd: A Statistical Proposal for Michigan and Florida --
>>  Statistical Revoting
>>
>>> From MIT's Ron Rivest... I'm wondering what election-law listers
>>> think
>> of this proposal (not just technically, but in terms of the political
>> environment, legal issues, etc.) best, Joe
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ronald L. Rivest <rivest at mit.edu>
>> Date: Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM
>> Subject: [Fwd: A Statistical Proposal for Michigan and Florida --
>> Statistical Revoting]
>> To:
>>
>> Here is a proposal for handling the Michigan / Florida
>> Democratic primary problem: use a sampling-based approach.
>> This can be quite inexpensive, yet give quite reasonable
>> results. We can call this "statistical re-voting".
>>
>> In this proposal, election officials would randomly
>> select a small percentage (say 1%) of the precincts.
>> Voters in those precincts would be able to vote by
>> going to their local election office, much in the
>> way that "early voting" is handled.
>>
>> The delegates in each state would be divided up proportionally
>> to the votes in the sample.
>>
>> The precincts should be chosen in a manner that is
>> demonstrably random and independent, such as a public
>> dice-rolling procedure; such procedures are used already
>> to determine which precincts to audit in a post-election
>> audit.
>>
>> An extended revoting period (e.g. four weeks) might smooth
>> things out nicely, so election officials are not burdened
>> too much in those precincts that are allowed to revote.
>>
>> A hand-marked paper ballot may work well for most voters.
>> This is not a complicated election---there is only one race.
>> A paper trail allows for the usual forms of post-election audit.
>> Accessible options also need to be provided, of course.
>>
>> With an sufficient sample size, the result should be close to
>> what you would get with full state-wide revoting, at much less
>> cost. It may be off by a delegate or two in the end. But if you
>> don't have the financial resources to run a full revote, there
>> are precious few reasonable alternatives; this may be one of them.
>> It may be perceived as unfair (not everyone gets to vote), but if
>> you can't afford the ultimately fair approach (a full revote), this
>> is an "approximately fair" alternative.
>>
>> I don't know if statistical revoting would be a legal alternative;
>> I'm not a lawyer.
>>
>> There are a number of ways to work out the details...
>>
>> (Feel free to forward...)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
>> UC Berkeley School of Information
>> http://josephhall.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> election-law mailing list
>> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
>> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> election-law mailing list
>> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
>> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>>
>
> --
>
> John Gideon
> Co-Director and Information Manager
> VotersUnite.Org
> www.votersunite.org<http://www.votersunite.org/>
>
>