PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID

I have no visibility of other posts that included the table I originally
posted - so yes I did ignore what I can not see.

The numbers that count are the official vote counts. The statistical
analysis is an interesting study - but does not change the official count.

Jack


"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Jack:

I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the
explanations
before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
addition (your omission) illuminating:

Mechanical Tally Error:
Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
Go 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)

Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee etc.
ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")

So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.

So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could
have
gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
higher than Bush's.

Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just the
mechanical error of the vote counting machines.

Steve


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less
than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.