Are Chads Democrats? An Analysis of the Florida Presidential Recount

M. Spiegel
{"title":"Are Chads Democrats? An Analysis of the Florida Presidential Recount","authors":"M. Spiegel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.252330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents the results from a statistical analysis of the first Florida recount. The findings indicate that it is highly unlikely that the relative increase in Gore's vote total can be explained by mechanical reading errors. Rather it appears partisan biases influenced the outcome. Estimates indicate that on average if a ballot's status changed from no vote to a vote, the chance that it went to Gore was about 15% higher than one would expect given his fraction of that county's vote. Overall then, controlling for each candidate's vote in a county and the type of ballot used, this paper estimates that Gore picked up 903 \"too many\" votes in the recount relative to what would have been expected by chance machine read errors. If humans influenced the results how did they do it? During the recount the ballots were put through the tabulating machines several times. However, machine readings tend to vary from run to run and this means humans, partisan humans, have to decide which of several tallies to report. Potentially, this discretion allowed the preferences of those conducting the recount to impact the reported totals.","PeriodicalId":413544,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice (Topic)","volume":"159 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.252330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper presents the results from a statistical analysis of the first Florida recount. The findings indicate that it is highly unlikely that the relative increase in Gore's vote total can be explained by mechanical reading errors. Rather it appears partisan biases influenced the outcome. Estimates indicate that on average if a ballot's status changed from no vote to a vote, the chance that it went to Gore was about 15% higher than one would expect given his fraction of that county's vote. Overall then, controlling for each candidate's vote in a county and the type of ballot used, this paper estimates that Gore picked up 903 "too many" votes in the recount relative to what would have been expected by chance machine read errors. If humans influenced the results how did they do it? During the recount the ballots were put through the tabulating machines several times. However, machine readings tend to vary from run to run and this means humans, partisan humans, have to decide which of several tallies to report. Potentially, this discretion allowed the preferences of those conducting the recount to impact the reported totals.
乍得人是民主党人吗?佛罗里达州总统重新计票分析
本文介绍了对佛罗里达州第一次重新计票的统计分析结果。研究结果表明,戈尔总票数的相对增加是极不可能用机械读数错误来解释的。相反,似乎是党派偏见影响了选举结果。据估计,如果一张选票的状态从“无票”变为“有票”,那么戈尔获得选票的几率比预期的要高15%,因为他在该县的选票中所占的比例很小。总的来说,控制每个候选人在一个县的选票和使用的选票类型,这篇论文估计戈尔在重新计票中获得了903张“过多”的选票,相对于偶然的机器读取错误的预期。如果人类影响了结果,他们是怎么做到的?在重新计票过程中,选票经过几次制表机。然而,机器的读数往往会因运行而变化,这意味着人类,党派的人类,必须决定报告几个结果中的哪一个。这种自由裁量权可能会让进行重新计票的人的偏好影响报告的总数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信