CDR: Close Elections and Causality
* In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed? * In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day? * Did the woman who voted at 9 a.m. but whose vote was counted at the _end_ of the final count, and whose vote seemingly "caused" one candidate to win and another to lose _actually_ "cause" the outcome? * Did Oregon, for example, whose votes were counted last and whose votes put a candidate over the top actually "cause" the outcome? First, a few words about causality. Most people think they know about cause-and-effect. The earth turns, and this "causes" the sun to rise. A rooster crows, but this is _not_ the cause of the sun coming up...so we know from modern science. But how about this example: a golfer is about to be defeated in a tournament. He hits his ball, it appears to be going wide, then it hits a tree branch and bounces toward the hole. It goes in. The golfer wins. It turns out (pointed out by Patrick Suppes 30 years ago in one of his textbooks) that nearly every person will say something like "The tree branch _caused_ him to win." That is, the tree branch is seen as an intervening agent which altered history. The weird thing is that a ball bouncing off a tree branch is quite clearly a _scattering_ event. In our crypto and information theory terms, we would say it "increases entropy," it randomizes the outcome. The fact that sometimes the randomization or scattering works to the benefit of one player does not mean much about "causation." How this relates to voting: In close elections, as in close sports games, as in the golf example, there will be many events which are later claimed to be "hinge points," or forks. -- Someone will say that a highway being closed prevented them from getting to the polling place in time, and that there additional vote "would have made the difference." They want a re-vote. -- Someone who voted at 9 a.m. will be characterized as having "caused" the outcome to be as it was...which is an obvious misuse of "causation" (just by the basic ontology that her vote at 9 a.m. could not have "caused" other votes to be as they were). -- The most commonly heard version of this "causation fallacy" is the usual stuff about how "Oregon made the difference. The voters in Oregon caused Al Gore to win." Do the mental experiment of assuming votes were tallied in the _other direction_, with votes on the West Coast counted and reported _before_ votes to the east. Then the comments would be about how "Rhode Island made the difference...the voters in Rhode Island caused Al Gore to be elected." Again, a misuse of the term "causation." Ironically, the book I recommended several weeks ago, Judea Pearl's "Causality," is very apropos here. It _caused_ me to better understand these points. OK, how about re-votes? Many are calling for a re-vote in Palm County, Florida. Various issues are cited, and the "voters in Palm County will make the difference" point is heard often. "The vote in Florida will cause one or the other of the candidate to win." "The outcome hinges on the vote in Palm County." First off, the points above, about causality and who gets counted last, apply. Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site. Thus, some people didn't bother to vote, some were careless in reading the ballot instructions, some just made random marks, some were drunk, all of the usual stuff happening in polling places across the country. This despite the estimated $3 billion spent on wooing voters. Deciding that one of those states or one of those counties was "decisive" (caused the outcome, was a hinge point, etc.) and thus should be given a chance to hold a new vote, has numerous implications for fairness: * instead of being just another voter, just another voting site, the N residents will now have the weight of the entire election outcome on their shoulders * intensive lobbying for votes will occur, far beyond the original lobbying (when I say "far beyond" I mean by several orders of magnitude...it might be that all residents would have to be sequestered from the time of the announcement of a re-vote to the actual re-vote just to ensure that bribes are not offered, etc.). * the claims by some that people would simply "repeat their votes, except without the confusing ballot issue" are naive. Sensing their new role as determiners of the outcome, many would change their original votes (And of course there would be no way of knowing if someone had changed their vote, for obvious reasons that ballots are not linkable to the voter.) * and there are the points about the ballot raised earlier: the ballot had been used before, there were no legal challenges made, the voting commission was led by a Democrat who had approved the ballot, the ballot was published in newspapers, etc. In summary, close elections and close sports games often seemingly depend on minor factors. These minor factors are, paradoxically and incorrectly, ascribed to be the "causes" of later events. Lastly, allowing a re-vote when the hinge points have already been identified is a serious distortion of the process. Rules are rules. The time to object is beforehand. Unless extremely serious voter fraud is found, results should not be thrown out when those results are in accordance with the rules. In no cases should a re-vote of a "hinge county" be allowed for less-than-massive-fraud reasons. And, of course, Palm County will _not_ be given a second chance to vote in this election. I guarantee it. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
* In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed?
* In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day?
I believe the concept is called 'sudden death'. And yes, if it's a draw then another election (followed by another, by another, etc.) should be called. I see the tie as a indicator of just how uninspiring the candidates really are. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 03:54 PM 11/9/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
* In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed?
* In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day?
I believe the concept is called 'sudden death'.
Hey, leave Jim Bell alone! :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 09:02 AM 11/9/00 -0800, Tim May wrote: [lots of good comments on causality....]
-- Someone will say that a highway being closed prevented them from getting to the polling place in time, and that there additional vote "would have made the difference." They want a re-vote.
A few years ago, Christie Whitman was busy campaigning for governor of New Jersey, and didn't get back home to vote in a school bond election. It lost by one vote. (On the other hand, the local district or state or somebody ignored their loss in the election and sold the bonds anyway....) ....
Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site. Thus, some people didn't bother to vote, some were careless in reading the ballot instructions, some just made random marks, some were drunk, all of the usual stuff happening in polling places across the country. This despite the estimated $3 billion spent on wooing voters.
The electoral college system means that in almost all states, except the one or two with the middlest results, a difference of a small number of votes doesn't change the outcome. Usually even changing the outcome for a whole state doesn't change the outcome of the election either, except a few big states. In Florida, where the vote totals are close to equal, a small number of changed votes could change the election. Arguably, the votes on the 19000 spoiled ballots _have_ changed the outcome of the election, because the vote went into the voting booth saying "I'm voting for Gore", and the ballot counters tossed those votes after they were made. ....
Rules are rules. The time to object is beforehand. Unless extremely serious voter fraud is found, results should not be thrown out when those results are in accordance with the rules. In no cases should a re-vote of a "hinge county" be allowed for less-than-massive-fraud reasons.
I agree that that's a strong point - if any of those 19000 voters was confused, the time for them to raise the issue was at the poll. If they _did_ ask "hey, this is confusing, how do I vote for Gore?" at the polling place, and the poll workers told them what to do and voided their ballots anyway, then they've got a cause of action. If they didn't complain, it's much harder to argue. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 02:41 PM 11/9/00 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 09:02 AM 11/9/00 -0800, Tim May wrote: I agree that that's a strong point - if any of those 19000 voters was confused, the time for them to raise the issue was at the poll. If they _did_ ask "hey, this is confusing, how do I vote for Gore?" at the polling place, and the poll workers told them what to do and voided their ballots anyway, then they've got a cause of action. If they didn't complain, it's much harder to argue.
Who says they didn't? These spoiled ballots don't imply that the voters who created them didn't ask for and receive new ballots. That's a different total and one which I have not seen in the media? steve
Tim May wrote:
* In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed?
* In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day?
* Did the woman who voted at 9 a.m. but whose vote was counted at the _end_ of the final count, and whose vote seemingly "caused" one candidate to win and another to lose _actually_ "cause" the outcome?
* Did Oregon, for example, whose votes were counted last and whose votes put a candidate over the top actually "cause" the outcome?
[... quite a lot snipped...] This is almost an argument *for* re-running the election. If the Palm Beach (or whatever the place is called) voters tip the balance to either Gore or Bush can they in any real sense be said to have decided the election? Their votes still won't count for any more than any other citizen of Florida. ISTM that the real reason for avoiding a re-vote is is the practicality of it. All that money, media attention and lawyerage will be focussed on a small group of people, as Tim points out later:
Deciding that one of those states or one of those counties was "decisive" (caused the outcome, was a hinge point, etc.) and thus should be given a chance to hold a new vote, has numerous implications for fairness:
* instead of being just another voter, just another voting site, the N residents will now have the weight of the entire election outcome on their shoulders
* intensive lobbying for votes will occur, far beyond the original lobbying (when I say "far beyond" I mean by several orders of magnitude...it might be that all residents would have to be sequestered from the time of the announcement of a re-vote to the actual re-vote just to ensure that bribes are not offered, etc.).
[...more snips...]
Rules are rules. The time to object is beforehand. Unless extremely serious voter fraud is found, results should not be thrown out when those results are in accordance with the rules. In no cases should a re-vote of a "hinge county" be allowed for less-than-massive-fraud reasons.
But are there no rules in Florida allowing for a re-vote? If there really are 19,000 spoiled papers from once county, that sounds "massive" to me. It may not be fraud - the fools who designed the papers probably thought they were doing right - but it has the same effect.
And, of course, Palm County will _not_ be given a second chance to vote in this election. I guarantee it.
When did they make you a Florida judge? (About the same time they made me an expert on the laws of a state I've never visited & know nothing about I suppose...) Ken Brown (unfortunately a fan of elections and constitutions)
At 12:38 +0000 11/10/00, Ken Brown wrote:
But are there no rules in Florida allowing for a re-vote? If there really are 19,000 spoiled papers from once county, that sounds "massive" to me. It may not be fraud - the fools who designed the papers probably thought they were doing right - but it has the same effect.
This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance whatsoever. How many got canceled last election- one number I heard said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical fluctuations. More importantly, the ballot was approved by both parties before the election took place. If they didn't bitch then they don't have the right to bitch now. -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Kevin Elliott wrote:
This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance whatsoever. How many got canceled last election- one number I heard said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical fluctuations.
Quite. The problem here is what happens when the mean expected error of the estimate given by the ballot starts to get significant with respect to the mean popularity difference being measured. There is always some error, but it is not often that the actual difference in votes given to the main participants shrinks too low for the error to have any relevance. Simply put, we are faced with the scourge of binary decision problems based on noisy data. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Kevin Elliott wrote:
At 12:38 +0000 11/10/00, Ken Brown wrote:
But are there no rules in Florida allowing for a re-vote? If there really are 19,000 spoiled papers from once county, that sounds "massive" to me. It may not be fraud - the fools who designed the papers probably thought they were doing right - but it has the same effect.
This is why people who don't know statistics should not be allowed to think... By no means is that number, by itself, of any significance whatsoever.
It is if I have a vague idea how big a county is. If a state the size of Florida has 60-ish counties I would be surprised if many of them had populations much over about million or less than 100,000 if the counties were reasonably randomly populated (if there has been an attempt to equalise the populations then even more so) Also, from years of political hackery & hanging around in elections, I know that over here spoiled votes are rarely as much as 1% of the total. So we have 3 possibilities - Palm Beach County is unusually large, Floridan voters are stupider than voters in London, or something went unusually wrong in that county. Assuming the county is the one described at http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us then it is quite large. You'd have to compare it to other counties to see if it was worse.
How many got canceled last election- one number I heard said 14,000. If so then 19,000 is about what one would expect considering increased voter turnout and normal statistical fluctuations.
Still could be a sign that something is badly wrong. Just because the last election was a shambles there as well doesn't meant that this one should have been. If there is a problem it ought to be fixed.
More importantly, the ballot was approved by both parties before the election took place. If they didn't bitch then they don't have the right to bitch now.
Just goes to show that officials of more than one political party can be stupid (does that surprise you?) The citizens of Palm Beach (or wherever) have, under you constitution & the laws of Florida a right to vote in fair elections. (Over here in Britain we always sort of assume that US elections are corrupt anyway, especially in the South :-) Obviously, the only reason this is being talked about at all by anyone more than thirty miles from Lake Okechobee is because of the close-run Presidential election. That is what brought the (possibly) messy state of the election in Florida to light. Some Floridans wanted recounts, or possibly even recounts. The chances are they wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't been for the presidential problem. Are you saying that they mustn't use their rights under local, Floridan, law because it delays the appointment of the electoral college and further confuses the presidential race? That local law and due process be suspended for the convenience of the Federal system? Ken
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Ken Brown wrote:
It is if I have a vague idea how big a county is.
There is no standard size. Usualy county lines are drawn for historical reasons. Though at time of statehood this does get reviewed and modified.
If a state the size of Florida has 60-ish counties I would be surprised if many of them had populations much over about million or less than 100,000 if the counties were reasonably randomly populated (if there has been an attempt to equalise the populations then even more so)
Texas has over 200. Some have several M (I live in Travis and it has 1M, Harris Country [Houston] probably has close to 5M) a couple in W. Tx. have only a few thousand. I'd be surprised if many (any?) states have any sort of program to get people to perferentialy live in certain counties. I suspect the other counties might get upset. I suspect Florida is quite similar. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
I'd be surprised if many (any?) states have any sort of program to get people to perferentialy live in certain counties. I suspect the other counties might get upset.
I suspect Florida is quite similar.
But maybe to redraw the boundaries. That's a common problem in Britain. Every now and again some government (almost always Conservative, for reasons to do with gerrymandering I suspect) gets it into its head that it would be a Good Thing if counties were more or less the same size so tried to amalgamate smaller ones and split larger ones and "rationalize" boundaries. Also, I know that smaller cities in the USA often split themselves away from larger ones and I don't know that counties don't. I've been to Bellaire, Texas... There were bad cases of redrawing boundaries in the UK in the 1960s, 70s & 80s. Lancashire, which once upon a time had a population about the size of Denmark or Belgium lost Liverpool and Manchester and large chunks of the north-west coast. Totally new counties which no-one had ever heard of before, such as Cleveland and Humberside were invented. "County Boroughs" (i.e. a town or city which was its own county) were forcibly amalgamated into the counties surrounding them. My own home town, Brighton was forced to merge with East Sussex by the Conservatives. At about the same time we lost our police force to the Sussex police (for some reason the only thing the newspapers complained about with losing the white helmets they used to wear - all the other forces used blue or black) and our water supply (to enforced privatisation). Most (but not all) of this sort of thing has been changed back by the Labour government which is very slightly less centralizing than the Tories were Ken
At 10:20 AM +0000 11/14/00, Ken Brown wrote:
But maybe to redraw the boundaries. That's a common problem in Britain. Every now and again some government (almost always Conservative, for reasons to do with gerrymandering I suspect) gets it into its head that it would be a Good Thing if counties were more or less the same size so tried to amalgamate smaller ones and split larger ones and "rationalize" boundaries.
You _do_ know, I assume, that the very term "gerrymandering" came from experiences in the U.S.? (Not to be confused with "jerrymathersing," which refers to the false claim that a person died in a war.) --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
Mr. May:
At 10:20 AM +0000 11/14/00, Ken Brown wrote:
But maybe to redraw the boundaries. That's a common problem in Britain. Every now and again some government (almost always Conservative, for reasons to do with gerrymandering I suspect) gets it into its head that it would be a Good Thing if counties were more or less the same size so tried to amalgamate smaller ones and split larger ones and "rationalize" boundaries.
You _do_ know, I assume, that the very term "gerrymandering" came from experiences in the U.S.?
(Not to be confused with "jerrymathersing," which refers to the false claim that a person died in a war.)
The impression that I get is that in Merry Old England, voting is done by county, whereas in this country voting is done by district. For the benefit of those not familiar with the American system: States (obviously) and counties have fixed boundaries, while voting districts are redrawn every 10 or so years to attempt to keep the population of each district relatively equivalent in population. At least that's the theory. What really happens is that since those in Power draw the lines, they attempt to draw the boundaries such that they maintain or gain power. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:00:02PM -0800, petro wrote:
The impression that I get is that in Merry Old England, voting is done by county, whereas in this country voting is done by district.
You are quite wrong.
For the benefit of those not familiar with the American system:
States (obviously) and counties have fixed boundaries, while voting districts are redrawn every 10 or so years to attempt to keep the population of each district relatively equivalent in population. At least that's the theory. What really happens is that since those in Power draw the lines, they attempt to draw the boundaries such that they maintain or gain power.
What you describe is the same as the system used in the UK. The system is now changing as the countries which make up the UK now have their own parliaments (of currently limited power). The stupidity of the current UK system is that Scottish MPs can vote on issues that influence the English, but English MPs can't vote on Scottish affairs. And if the left get their way the English will end up being ruled by the socialist super state that is the European Union. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott steve@tightrope.demon.co.uk i'm gonna climb on the mountains of the moon and find the distant man waving his spoon
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
In close elections, as in close sports games, as in the golf example, there will be many events which are later claimed to be "hinge points," or forks.
Which is pretty much caused by the count being seen as an advancing 'race' with a definite order. I've never understood what the hell is a direct broadcast all about when all the votes have already been cast.
Again, a misuse of the term "causation."
Yep. People tend to have trouble with things causal.
Second, at the time of the "approximately simultaneous" vote on Tuesday, no particular state, no particular county, and no particular precinct had any way of "knowing" that it would be a hinge site.
In even simpler terms, if there is an actual draw, every single vote is precisely as much the fork as any other. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
At 3:17 PM +0200 11/10/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
In close elections, as in close sports games, as in the golf example, there will be many events which are later claimed to be "hinge points," or forks.
Which is pretty much caused by the count being seen as an advancing 'race' with a definite order. I've never understood what the hell is a direct broadcast all about when all the votes have already been cast.
Yes, this is precisely the key. The issue of which voting areas "pushed the victor over the top" or "caused" his victory are artifacts of the order in which the vote was counted. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
participants (9)
-
Bill Stewart -
Jim Choate -
Ken Brown -
Kevin Elliott -
petro -
Sampo A Syreeni -
Steve Mynott -
Steve Schear -
Tim May