Today, we try to measure beyond our ability. The
University of Houston's College of Engineering
presents this series about the machines that make
our civilization run, and the people whose
ingenuity created them.
The Bush/Gore vote-count has
given us all a short-course on observational
science. When you hear this program, the election
may or may not yet be resolved. As I record on a
sunny overcast Saturday, November 25th, the issue
remains mired in cacophony.
However, this lesson in data-reading will linger
for a long time. Vote-counting has always been
imperfect, and when the outcome depends upon a
difference smaller than that imperfection, we're
left in a quandary. Suppose, for example, that we
didn't use an electoral college. Then Gore would've
won the popular vote by about one vote in five
hundred. I seriously doubt that our counting is
anywhere near that accurate. Hence, for all
practical purposes, the popular vote was a tie.
However, since we live by an electoral system, it
comes down to Florida. It might've come down to any
of the other close states, but only Florida has
enough electoral votes to dictate the outcome. And
the percentage difference in Florida is far less
than it is even in the national vote. I'm far from
first to point this out, but the hotly-argued
difference is presently about one vote out of every
ten thousand. No one can reasonably call the
Florida vote anything other than a tie.
And so we've watched unprecedented legal and
procedural combat as both sides try to settle an
issue that data (that is, vote-counts) are far too
inaccurate to settle.
All this has its analogy in a science laboratory.
How many nights have I stayed up trying to tease a
conclusion from data that weren't precise enough to
yield a conclusion? Technically speaking, the
signal-to-noise ratio is far too low. We have
statistical means for extracting results when
that's true, but only by processing data in ways
that obscure individual data points. Those
techniques would never play in today's court of
public opinion.
The combat in Florida is thus our only possible
recourse. We face similar problems in horse races
and gymnastics competitions. For fifty years I've
toted up test scores and given students grades,
knowing that my measurements aren't nearly accurate
enough to absolutely tell every C+ from a B-. We
likewise use terribly primitive measuring
instruments in our presidential elections. I
suspect we'll have to wait until we've become more
scientifically literate before we accept fully
electronic, or mathematically subtle, means for
measuring the will of the people.
Meanwhile, each side tries to finish off the other
using the only tools available -- the courtroom and
the media. There are no villains here, only the
fact that we don't have a sudden-death overtime to
break the tie. Since we don't, I'm content to wait
out the boxing match. Whichever candidate wins will
be my president. No one can call democracy
pretty as it struggles with the only tools at hand.
It's messy, but do let me know when you find
anything better.
I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston,
where we're interested in the way inventive minds
work.
(Theme music)
