4 ms·
Something that struck me about the Arizona hand recount numbers: most of the reporting precincts(? - I use this term in a general sense, I don't remember how th
by unanswered 6y ago
Something that struck me about the Arizona hand recount numbers: most of the reporting precincts(? - I use this term in a general sense, I don't remember how the numbers were grouped) reported that hand counts in batches of about 1000 votes showed an accuracy of about 99%, i.e., on the order of 5-10 ballots incorrectly counted (again, rough numbers from memory). But then some of the precincts reported "nope, we found 100% accuracy; no discrepancies", for the same batch sizes. That struck me as odd. There wasn't a spectrum where 0-10 or even 0-20 were the outliers; it was bimodal around 5-10 and 0. Or whatever the actual numbers were, my point is bimodality with a mode at 0. That was odd.
- kube-system 6y agoI think it's relatively common for errors caused by engineering processes to exhibit a pattern that isn't evenly distributed. As a made up example: maybe some precincts had scanners that worked 100% perfectly, and some had units that occasionally mis-scanned with a rhythm.