ex0820: Quantifying Evidence for Outlierness
Description
The data are Democratic and Republican vote counts, by (a) absentee ballot and
(b) voting machine, for 22 elections in Philadelphia's senatorial districts
between 1982 and 1993.source
Ramsey, F.L. and Schafer, D.W. (2013). The Statistical Sleuth: A
Course in Methods of Data Analysis (3rd ed), Cengage Learning.Details
In a special election to fill a Pennsylvania State Senate seat in
1993, the Democrat, William Stinson, received 19,127 machine--counted
votes and the Republican, Bruce Marks, received 19,691. In addition,
there were 1,391 absentee ballots for Stinson and 366 absentee ballots
for Marks, so that the total tally showed Stinson the winner by 461
votes. The large disparity between the machine--counted and absentee
votes, and the resulting reversal of the outcome due to the absentee
ballots caused some concern about possible illegal influence on the
absentee votes. To see whether the discrepancy in absentee votes was
larger than could be explained by chance, an econometrician considered
the data given in this data frame (read from a graph in The New
York Times, 11 April 1994).References
Ashenfelter, O (1994). Report on Expected Absentee Ballots. Department of
Economics, Princeton University. See also Simon Jackman (2011). pscl: Classes
and Methods for R Developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory,
Stanford University. Department of Political Science, Stanford University.
Stanford, California. R package version 1.03.10. http://pscl.stanford.edu/