What I mean by error is a mis-counted or uncounted ballot. By definition this is not detected in the initial count, and an indeterminate number will remain undetected in any subsequent count.
What I mean by problematic are the ones you seem to be discussing. Hanging chad, over-votes, etc. These are the errors that are detected on the initial count.
Reducing the number of problematic ballots is clearly a plus, all else held equal, but your thesis was, "Are the new methods statistically any more or less accurate than the last election." Perhaps I am working under a different definition of "accurate" than you are. It seems to me that simply reducing the number of ballots that require special attention without an eye toward correctly counting the ones that don't require special attention is a big step backward.
My point is that judging a voting method by the number of errors election officials detect opens up a big set of problem. Since we can't know how many errors there really are (witness Florida 2000) we can't know which is truly the best.
To re-state the whole discussion more simply, I think you are asserting that we should use whatever method is best, and I am countering that we can't know which is best.
Okay, margin of error applies to statistical methods. Voting is not supposed to be a statistical method.
You can analyze how many problematic ballots there are, but that doesn't necessarily address accuracy. Just because a ballot doesn't raise a red flag doesn't mean it was counted correctly.
Why a voting system would be designed to count backward was a mystery to Broward County Mayor Ilene Lieberman.
I don't expect a mayor to be a comp-sci expert, but this clearly translates to "Neither I, nor anyone on my staff, has any fucking idea how these things work."
Everybody knows how a pen and paper works, and can reasonably verify they are being used correctly.:-/
I'm no statistician, but I don't see how you can measure "Are the new methods statistically any more or less accurate than the last election." without making up a number that is "correct" to compare to.
I mean, if we agreed on a correct number, we wouldn't be talking about it, would we?
Any kind of reference? Or do we just trust your honest face?
For now, let's suppose that those stats are true. It seems to lump defensive firearm use with all gun accidents. (I.e. hunting accidents.) It also leaves out how many lives were saved by the presence of a gun.
I suppose they should, but I don't think that's what people tend to think of when they see that statistic.
Furthermore, since you said:
Statistically more people are killed every year in the United States in their own homes or a friends home by guns than times the guns are used to successfully defend said homes.
assigning the verb "killed" to the noun "guns" you leave the reader to imagine how the guns go about killing people. I think that accidental self-infliction might spring to people's minds, but I doubt most people would assume that suicide is included, based on the language you chose.
It is my opinion that my 16 year old friend would not have killed himself if he had to go in search of a means. With a gun readily available an impulse decision to kill himself was easily acted upon.
That's a moving story. But what if he had intentionally driven into a concrete barricade? Would that consitute an argument against barricades? Or cars?
Don't get me wrong, the "goodness" of a thing must be taken in its totality. Suicides such as the one you describe are tragic, and that must be weighed. But I think that we have to be fair in the analysis to come to the best conclusion.
But statistics rarely change opinions, so it's a moot point.
Weird. I haven't cited any. Did someone 'jack your account?
Oh, and that medical study you linked to concluded:
Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to [ . . . *] commit suicide with a firearm.
Hmm. I'll file that one under the "no shit" heading. I suppose that having rope in the house is a risk factor for suicide by hanging too.
This conclusion makes sense in the context of Science, but I don't think that quoting is ineffective rhetorically.
-Peter
*This ellipsis represents a cut relating to homicide, and didn't change the meaning of the quote, which was "Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm."
The JPFO had a program where they would go in half on local billboards of their design. One was a grinning man in a ski mask holding a woman from behind with his gloved hand over her mouth. She fumbled with a gun drawn from her purse. The caption read:
Hey, why don't you go somewhere else with your fancy "knowledge of the topic?" This is slashdot, we all talk out of our asses here.
But seriously, I agree 100%. I'm a wheel-gun man myself. I love shooting auto-loaders, but I wouldn't dream of using one for personal defense.
I have a good friend I often shoot with. He swears by his Glock. (Which has no "active" safeties.) But my revolver never fails to feed, and I get six shots before I have to worry about extracting any of 'em;-)
Did you just read ONE sentence out of the middle of my post? My whole point is advocating decriminalization. Read again:
But by your own admission there are ALREADY cocaine addicts. I don't think that legalizing coke will cure addicts, or prevent future addiction. But, clearly, drug laws don't do these things EITHER.
My point was that decriminalization won't fix the drug problems out there, but the drug laws don't fix them either. The logical course of action is to save our money, regain our freedom, and stop trying to (ostensibly) protect people from themselves.
So to answer your question; It is none of my business at all.
I can't believe you missed my entire point. What are you? High? Nooch.
You don't know what I know, you presumptuous little shit.
But by your own admission there are ALREADY cocaine addicts. I don't think that legalizing coke will cure addicts, or prevent future addiction. But, clearly, drug laws don't do these things EITHER.
Does your vast experience with cocaine addicts lead you to believe they care AT ALL that coke is illegal?
So, to be rational, let's stop spending money on "enforcement." Let's stop growing government's powers an authority to no benefit. Let's focus, instead, on local support for addicts and getting the government out of the business of controlling what's in my blood stream.
You might think we would have learned from prohibition that outlawing substances has a net result of creating guys like Al Capone or Pablo Escobar, as the case may be.
OTOH it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that The Government is spending billions to protect me from my wittle self.
What should happen, if there was fraud, is to invalidate the election and schedule another one. In the new election, throw out (or make illegal) whatever machines were used to create the fraud.
Machines don't commit fraud, human beings do.
Bearing this in mind, I suggest a different course of action, should substantial fraud come to light.
Throw the people who committed the fraud in jail.
Identify ways in which the processes can be improved to prevent and detect fraud. (This will probably have something to do with machines.)
Blaming the machine accomplish nothing. Relying on the machine to prevent fraud is hopeless. The best the machine can do is be auditable.
Since we're getting serious, where did all this draft talk come from? I've heard the President flatly deny plans for a draft on more than one occasion.
Slashdot Mirror
What I mean by error is a mis-counted or uncounted ballot. By definition this is not detected in the initial count, and an indeterminate number will remain undetected in any subsequent count.
What I mean by problematic are the ones you seem to be discussing. Hanging chad, over-votes, etc. These are the errors that are detected on the initial count.
Reducing the number of problematic ballots is clearly a plus, all else held equal, but your thesis was, "Are the new methods statistically any more or less accurate than the last election." Perhaps I am working under a different definition of "accurate" than you are. It seems to me that simply reducing the number of ballots that require special attention without an eye toward correctly counting the ones that don't require special attention is a big step backward.
My point is that judging a voting method by the number of errors election officials detect opens up a big set of problem. Since we can't know how many errors there really are (witness Florida 2000) we can't know which is truly the best.
To re-state the whole discussion more simply, I think you are asserting that we should use whatever method is best, and I am countering that we can't know which is best.
-Peter
I'm going to try once more, then I give up.
errors != problematic ballots
-Peter
Okay, margin of error applies to statistical methods. Voting is not supposed to be a statistical method.
You can analyze how many problematic ballots there are, but that doesn't necessarily address accuracy. Just because a ballot doesn't raise a red flag doesn't mean it was counted correctly.
-Peter
I don't expect a mayor to be a comp-sci expert, but this clearly translates to "Neither I, nor anyone on my staff, has any fucking idea how these things work."
Everybody knows how a pen and paper works, and can reasonably verify they are being used correctly.
-Peter
I'm no statistician, but I don't see how you can measure "Are the new methods statistically any more or less accurate than the last election." without making up a number that is "correct" to compare to.
I mean, if we agreed on a correct number, we wouldn't be talking about it, would we?
-Peter
Well, I'm pretty lost at this point.
But here's to firearm safety!
-Peter
Woah, there.
Any kind of reference? Or do we just trust your honest face?
For now, let's suppose that those stats are true. It seems to lump defensive firearm use with all gun accidents. (I.e. hunting accidents.) It also leaves out how many lives were saved by the presence of a gun.
-Peter
Must be weird to live in a place where all the women are more physically imposing than any potential rapists.
Oh, and I hope you never get tired of that monarchy. We needed all our guns to get that monkey off our back.
-Peter
PS: Please don't call us next time Germany gets up to its old tricks.
-P
I suppose they should, but I don't think that's what people tend to think of when they see that statistic.
Furthermore, since you said:
assigning the verb "killed" to the noun "guns" you leave the reader to imagine how the guns go about killing people. I think that accidental self-infliction might spring to people's minds, but I doubt most people would assume that suicide is included, based on the language you chose.
That's a moving story. But what if he had intentionally driven into a concrete barricade? Would that consitute an argument against barricades? Or cars?
Don't get me wrong, the "goodness" of a thing must be taken in its totality. Suicides such as the one you describe are tragic, and that must be weighed. But I think that we have to be fair in the analysis to come to the best conclusion.
Weird. I haven't cited any. Did someone 'jack your account?
Oh, and that medical study you linked to concluded:
Hmm. I'll file that one under the "no shit" heading. I suppose that having rope in the house is a risk factor for suicide by hanging too.
This conclusion makes sense in the context of Science, but I don't think that quoting is ineffective rhetorically.
-Peter
*This ellipsis represents a cut relating to homicide, and didn't change the meaning of the quote, which was "Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm."
-Peter
Can you cite a source for that?
I believe that this stat only holds if you count suicides.
-Peter
Hey, why don't you go somewhere else with your fancy "knowledge of the topic?" This is slashdot, we all talk out of our asses here.
;-)
But seriously, I agree 100%. I'm a wheel-gun man myself. I love shooting auto-loaders, but I wouldn't dream of using one for personal defense.
I have a good friend I often shoot with. He swears by his Glock. (Which has no "active" safeties.) But my revolver never fails to feed, and I get six shots before I have to worry about extracting any of 'em
-Peter
My point was that decriminalization won't fix the drug problems out there, but the drug laws don't fix them either. The logical course of action is to save our money, regain our freedom, and stop trying to (ostensibly) protect people from themselves.
So to answer your question; It is none of my business at all.
I can't believe you missed my entire point. What are you? High? Nooch.
-Peter
We've gotta be able to get some kind of reading on that server, up or down.
It's a trap!
-Peter
And the next question will be, how long until we have roundup dependent "humans."
-Peter
You don't know what I know, you presumptuous little shit.
But by your own admission there are ALREADY cocaine addicts. I don't think that legalizing coke will cure addicts, or prevent future addiction. But, clearly, drug laws don't do these things EITHER.
Does your vast experience with cocaine addicts lead you to believe they care AT ALL that coke is illegal?
So, to be rational, let's stop spending money on "enforcement." Let's stop growing government's powers an authority to no benefit. Let's focus, instead, on local support for addicts and getting the government out of the business of controlling what's in my blood stream.
-Peter
You might think we would have learned from prohibition that outlawing substances has a net result of creating guys like Al Capone or Pablo Escobar, as the case may be.
OTOH it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that The Government is spending billions to protect me from my wittle self.
-Peter
Well, it is usually a decimal expression, but could always be re-written:-Peter
Well, its nice that a family like that can be so successful and manage to maintain a nut at each end of the spectrum.
-Peter
Will the innovation never end?
-Peter
Machines don't commit fraud, human beings do.
Bearing this in mind, I suggest a different course of action, should substantial fraud come to light.
Blaming the machine accomplish nothing. Relying on the machine to prevent fraud is hopeless. The best the machine can do is be auditable.
-Peter
Since we're getting serious, where did all this draft talk come from? I've heard the President flatly deny plans for a draft on more than one occasion.
-Peter
I did see it. I do remember there being some gay content in that flick, but I don't remember anyone trying to fill any of the Baldwins.
-Peter
He followed that up with:
That guy's pretty funny.
-Peter
I don't know where you can find it online, but I'm certain there is a copy in the Clinton Presidential Library.
Hope this helps.
-Peter