New Movie

Raiderhater · 11-30-2000, 06:33 PM

I found a ad for a new movie that is now playing. I thought you might want to check it out. It looks like a real horror.

[url="http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/unbreakable.html"]rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/unbreakable.html[/url]

------------------
WILDCATS 29
corn balls 28

DanT · 11-30-2000, 07:21 PM

Hey, Rush is looking pretty slim. Good for him. I hadn't seen a picture of him lately. I wasn't able to get to the hyperlink of the movie, so I just went to his homepage. Here's the first story I read there. I'm curious if anyone finds it to be convincing:
[url="http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/STACK__1_112400.html"]http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/STACK__1_112400.html[/url]

DanT · 11-30-2000, 07:24 PM

There must be something I'm missing. What's "From Rush's Stack of Stuff"? Is that for humor or something? Was this essay supposed to be convincing?

**morphius** · 11-30-2000, 07:41 PM

Dan - It was kind of humor, at least that is ho it appeared when I listened to it live, but also had a point to it. If people were having a tough time picking a canidate, because neither of the main ones really endeared themselves. Then wouldn't it make sense that in really close elections that in cases such as this that there may be a bunch of people that did not vote for President?

DanT · 11-30-2000, 07:50 PM

Hey Morphius,

Yeah, I must be a little slow on the uptake. It makes sense that there would be a lot of non-votes, that's for sure. Here's a link to a cnn.com "fact check" (so-called) about the undervote. It contains criticisms of claims made by both sides:
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/30/jackson.undervote/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/30/jackson.undervote/index.html[/url]

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]

DanT · 11-30-2000, 08:02 PM

Well, one thing that everyone can agree on--it's kind of chickenshit for Gore's folks to be whining about a differential undercount that results from using punch-cards instead of optical-scan ballots if the problem has been known about for so long. Hell, that's an obvious equal-protection violation of the Constitution right there. The whole state should be using equipment that has comparable measurement properties. If the punch-card system is more than twice as likely to miss a vote as a optical-card system, then why are they being used? And why didn't anyone figure this out BEFORE the election?

Stupid idjits.

DanT · 11-30-2000, 08:10 PM

The most bogus thing about Gore's complaint is the fact that the Democratic counties where he thinks he has uncounted votes were, by and large, using equipment that must have been approved by a bunch of Democrats. Right? I mean, the real blame for this whole "undervote" mess should be on the Democrats if it's going to be on any party. The butterfly ballot is kind of like that, also. I mean, who would approve such a f'ed-up design. If the Democrats didn't have enough sense to pilot-test such an unusual design to figure out if it worked, which party should be blamed for that? Sure as hell shouldn't be the Republicans.

**morphius** · 11-30-2000, 08:26 PM

DanT - No arguement on some of your points. I thought one of the law suits by the Demi's was that one of the second machine counts should be thrown out because they lost votes, but I have not heard much about this one since. Doesn't sound like they really want all votes counted with lawsuits like this.

It would be nice if the VNS would have given their numbers instead of just saying that it was wrong, but then that would be useful.

[This message has been edited by morphius (edited 11-30-2000).]

Raiderhater · 11-30-2000, 08:27 PM

Dan, they did pilot test the ballot desing. They sent samples out to voters and newspapers. And nobody I repeat [b]NOBODY[/b] complained about the desing being complicated untill [i]after[/i] the vote. Oh, and get this, the person who was responsible for the ballot desing is a Democrat. How about them apples?

------------------
WILDCATS 29
corn balls 28

DanT · 11-30-2000, 08:35 PM

Hey Morphius,

Yeah, I would have been interested in the numbers also. Of course, the VNS numbers would have been just an estimate, subject to random sampling error and all that. They'd have to have a very large sample to be able to have a reasonable chance of detecting a difference of a few tenths of a percentage point. In a way, it might have been less misleading for them to just leave it the way they did--with a statement that the results probably (i.e. >50% chance) went this way or the other. Still, the statistician in me still would rather see the actual numbers, even though I know that they'd be misinterpreted by folks who aren't used to dealing with lies...uh, I mean...statistics. [img]http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

DanT · 11-30-2000, 08:42 PM

Hey raiderhader,

I mean a real pilot test--the kind that most competent research teams do before every survey. The whole point of a pilot test is to catch UNFORSEEN errors and problems with the proposed instruments. Now, I would hope that if I had seen that ballot beforehand, I would have automatically nixed it--folks don't read English in an interleaved-manner across two pages: of course it's a bad design--but even if I hadn't, a properly conducted pilot test would have had a good chance of detecting a problem.

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]

Raiderhater · 11-30-2000, 08:51 PM

Dan, I see no problem with it whatsoever. It is not confusing to me. And guess what, 3rd graders have had no problems with it either. How do you explain that? The truth of the matter is, it's not confussing. It wasn't considered confussing until after they voted and a telemarketing firm, that was paid by the Dems, called and suggested that perhaps they might have been confused by the ballot and voted for the wrong guy. Then they prompted the voters to join others like themselves and call thier congressman and whine and complain.

------------------
WILDCATS 29
corn balls 28

Raiderhater · 11-30-2000, 09:00 PM

OK, I don't know why the link didn't work, but I have another one to try. This is an audio ad for another "movie".

[url="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/ILLUSTRATING.html"]www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/ILLUSTRATING.html[/url]

------------------
WILDCATS 29
corn balls 28

[This message has been edited by raiderhader (edited 11-30-2000).]

DanT · 11-30-2000, 09:08 PM

raiderhader,

Were the 3rd graders given the full ballot and asked to vote for Gore? No, they were given the two pages that concerned the Presidential race. The main problem with that ballot is that it uses two pages for one race. If you eliminate that problem by handing someone two pages ("Gee, why do I have two pages, it must be that both pages are for this one race.") then of course a small sample of 3rd-graders would figure out the rest. Really, they aren't figuring out anything by that kind of test: they're having it figured it out for them.

If you want to see a reasonable statistics-based attempt at ascertaining whether or not there was a problem with the Palm Beach ballot, here's a link to an analysis by a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University:
[url="http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/"]http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/[/url]

I doubt that any of my colleagues in the American Statistical Association could look at those results and not think that the truth is that it was a confusing ballot for a lot of voters.

DanT · 11-30-2000, 09:29 PM

By the way, the link in my reply #13 has links to other reasonable analyses, though it's pretty damn convincing by itself: it simply compares the county-level data in Florida and shows huges discrepancies between the observed and expected number of Buchanan votes in Palm Beach County. There is no real doubt that the ballot confused a lot of voters.

11-30-2000, 07:21 PM	#2
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	Hey, Rush is looking pretty slim. Good for him. I hadn't seen a picture of him lately. I wasn't able to get to the hyperlink of the movie, so I just went to his homepage. Here's the first story I read there. I'm curious if anyone finds it to be convincing: [url="http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/STACK__1_112400.html"]http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/STACK__1_112400.html[/url]
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 07:24 PM	#3
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	There must be something I'm missing. What's "From Rush's Stack of Stuff"? Is that for humor or something? Was this essay supposed to be convincing?
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 07:41 PM	#4
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6825027	Dan - It was kind of humor, at least that is ho it appeared when I listened to it live, but also had a point to it. If people were having a tough time picking a canidate, because neither of the main ones really endeared themselves. Then wouldn't it make sense that in really close elections that in cases such as this that there may be a bunch of people that did not vote for President?
Posts: 25,977

11-30-2000, 07:50 PM	#5
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	Hey Morphius, Yeah, I must be a little slow on the uptake. It makes sense that there would be a lot of non-votes, that's for sure. Here's a link to a cnn.com "fact check" (so-called) about the undervote. It contains criticisms of claims made by both sides: [url="http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/30/jackson.undervote/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/30/jackson.undervote/index.html[/url] [This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 08:02 PM	#6
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	Well, one thing that everyone can agree on--it's kind of chickenshit for Gore's folks to be whining about a differential undercount that results from using punch-cards instead of optical-scan ballots if the problem has been known about for so long. Hell, that's an obvious equal-protection violation of the Constitution right there. The whole state should be using equipment that has comparable measurement properties. If the punch-card system is more than twice as likely to miss a vote as a optical-card system, then why are they being used? And why didn't anyone figure this out BEFORE the election? Stupid idjits.
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 06:33 PM
Raiderhater **** the Raiders Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: A Webb of chaos Casino cash: $1902021	I found a ad for a new movie that is now playing. I thought you might want to check it out. It looks like a real horror. [url="http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/unbreakable.html"]rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/unbreakable.html[/url] ------------------ WILDCATS 29 corn balls 28
Posts: 28,301

11-30-2000, 08:10 PM	#7
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	The most bogus thing about Gore's complaint is the fact that the Democratic counties where he thinks he has uncounted votes were, by and large, using equipment that must have been approved by a bunch of Democrats. Right? I mean, the real blame for this whole "undervote" mess should be on the Democrats if it's going to be on any party. The butterfly ballot is kind of like that, also. I mean, who would approve such a f'ed-up design. If the Democrats didn't have enough sense to pilot-test such an unusual design to figure out if it worked, which party should be blamed for that? Sure as hell shouldn't be the Republicans.
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 08:26 PM	#8
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6825027	DanT - No arguement on some of your points. I thought one of the law suits by the Demi's was that one of the second machine counts should be thrown out because they lost votes, but I have not heard much about this one since. Doesn't sound like they really want all votes counted with lawsuits like this. It would be nice if the VNS would have given their numbers instead of just saying that it was wrong, but then that would be useful. [This message has been edited by morphius (edited 11-30-2000).]
Posts: 25,977

11-30-2000, 08:27 PM	#9
Raiderhater **** the Raiders Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: A Webb of chaos Casino cash: $1902021	Dan, they did pilot test the ballot desing. They sent samples out to voters and newspapers. And nobody I repeat [b]NOBODY[/b] complained about the desing being complicated untill [i]after[/i] the vote. Oh, and get this, the person who was responsible for the ballot desing is a Democrat. How about them apples? ------------------ WILDCATS 29 corn balls 28
Posts: 28,301

11-30-2000, 08:35 PM	#10
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	Hey Morphius, Yeah, I would have been interested in the numbers also. Of course, the VNS numbers would have been just an estimate, subject to random sampling error and all that. They'd have to have a very large sample to be able to have a reasonable chance of detecting a difference of a few tenths of a percentage point. In a way, it might have been less misleading for them to just leave it the way they did--with a statement that the results probably (i.e. >50% chance) went this way or the other. Still, the statistician in me still would rather see the actual numbers, even though I know that they'd be misinterpreted by folks who aren't used to dealing with lies...uh, I mean...statistics. [img]http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 08:42 PM	#11
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	Hey raiderhader, I mean a real pilot test--the kind that most competent research teams do before every survey. The whole point of a pilot test is to catch UNFORSEEN errors and problems with the proposed instruments. Now, I would hope that if I had seen that ballot beforehand, I would have automatically nixed it--folks don't read English in an interleaved-manner across two pages: of course it's a bad design--but even if I hadn't, a properly conducted pilot test would have had a good chance of detecting a problem. [This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 08:51 PM	#12
Raiderhater **** the Raiders Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: A Webb of chaos Casino cash: $1902021	Dan, I see no problem with it whatsoever. It is not confusing to me. And guess what, 3rd graders have had no problems with it either. How do you explain that? The truth of the matter is, it's not confussing. It wasn't considered confussing until after they voted and a telemarketing firm, that was paid by the Dems, called and suggested that perhaps they might have been confused by the ballot and voted for the wrong guy. Then they prompted the voters to join others like themselves and call thier congressman and whine and complain. ------------------ WILDCATS 29 corn balls 28
Posts: 28,301

11-30-2000, 09:00 PM	#13
Raiderhater **** the Raiders Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: A Webb of chaos Casino cash: $1902021	OK, I don't know why the link didn't work, but I have another one to try. This is an audio ad for another "movie". [url="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/ILLUSTRATING.html"]www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/ILLUSTRATING.html[/url] ------------------ WILDCATS 29 corn balls 28 [This message has been edited by raiderhader (edited 11-30-2000).]
Posts: 28,301

11-30-2000, 09:08 PM	#14
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	raiderhader, Were the 3rd graders given the full ballot and asked to vote for Gore? No, they were given the two pages that concerned the Presidential race. The main problem with that ballot is that it uses two pages for one race. If you eliminate that problem by handing someone two pages ("Gee, why do I have two pages, it must be that both pages are for this one race.") then of course a small sample of 3rd-graders would figure out the rest. Really, they aren't figuring out anything by that kind of test: they're having it figured it out for them. If you want to see a reasonable statistics-based attempt at ascertaining whether or not there was a problem with the Palm Beach ballot, here's a link to an analysis by a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University: [url="http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/"]http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/[/url] I doubt that any of my colleagues in the American Statistical Association could look at those results and not think that the truth is that it was a confusing ballot for a lot of voters.
Posts: 4,231

11-30-2000, 09:29 PM	#15
DanT Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Davis, CA Casino cash: $4301711	By the way, the link in my reply #13 has links to other reasonable analyses, though it's pretty damn convincing by itself: it simply compares the county-level data in Florida and shows huges discrepancies between the observed and expected number of Buchanan votes in Palm Beach County. There is no real doubt that the ballot confused a lot of voters.
Posts: 4,231