澳洲论文代写：选举与计票
考虑到2000年5月6日的一个具体案例，《华盛顿邮报》报道称，为了预测当时美国总统大选的获胜者，多位政治学家对数学模型进行了深入分析。民主党候选人阿尔·戈尔和共和党候选人乔治·w·布什是被提名的两位实力最强的候选人。有了这两个值后，这些变量与几个模型进行了比较，这些模型包括一系列的价值观，如民意数据和州经济，这些都表明戈尔赢得选举的机会非常小(Lo¨vbrand & berg, 2005)。
现在，大多数州的投票已经结束，很明显，最终结果将完全取决于投票结果。计票工作始于佛罗里达州，该州拥有25张选举人票，被认为是佛罗里达州人口最多、竞争最激烈的州。下午8点，根据佛罗里达州出口民调的数据，官方宣布戈尔赢得了选举。但后来又接到了一个小电话，结果被撤回了，第二天早上布什被提名为胜利者。这种情况的迫近要求自动重新计票，在最初的计票中发现戈尔和布什的计票结果存在显著差异，因此决定被推翻。
这是一个直截了当的情况，需要简单和明确的途径来解决这个问题，即清点所有选票并宣布获胜者。然而，事情并不像人们想象的那么简单和容易，最终人们发现佛罗里达州的获胜者将无法通过计票来确定，但形势要求每个候选人之间进行法律战。因此，代表每一党派的律师被传唤，他们被指示将每一候选人的利益提交给美国最高法院。这一决定最终推翻了早些时候佛罗里达州最高法院的裁决，并决定通过法律和政治程序最终解决这一问题(Jasanoff, 2007)。
上述场景和现实生活中的证据突出了四点:
经查明，投票和投票是一个简单的过程，已进行了数年，没有任何错误。然而，在这种情况下，一个简单的系统描述了令人惊讶的行为。研究发现，珍贵的52次选举不足以揭示所有可能的制度行为。因此，真实生活中的情况永远无法得到准确的预测，但对未来结果的估计和可能值可以在一定程度上得到猜测。
第二个明显的不确定性是佛罗里达州的选举毫无疑问存在于所有的选举中，但整个情况变得很重要，因为选举如此接近，双方都认为自己是潜在的赢家或输家。最后的结果是决定利害关系，总统一职将完全取决于这一结果。
第三，争端从未得到解决，两党都受到计票技术方面的制约，但根本的事实是，所有这些都受到司法和政治程序的制约。合法的结果被解释为竞争各方之间的谈判，在任何方面都不存在透明度。然而，双方领导人及其追随者都同意法律程序提出的规则，并接受最高法院的决定。此外，有人宣布，这些结果不是最后的和永久的，它们将在下次选举中重新审议。
如果在这种情况下采取任何技术方法来克服计票的不确定性，那么两党都将受到科学方法的影响。此外，公众的这种密切关注也无法迅速、合法和果断地解决冲突。
澳洲论文代写：选举与计票
Considering a specific case of May 6th, 2000 it was reported in a Washington Post that deep analysis of mathematical models were conducted by various political scientists for predicting the winner of US Presidential elections of that time. The two strongest candidates named out were Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. After having this two values these variable were measured against several models which included a range of values such as public opinion data and state economywhich all indicated that there are very less chances of Gore to win the election (Lo¨vbrand & berg, 2005).
Now at this point in time polls were closed in most of the states and it was all clear that the final result will depend entirely on the outcome of the casted votes. Counting of votes was started in Florida having 25 electoral votes which was considered most populous and contested states of Florida. At 8:00 P.M. it was announced officially that Gore has win the election on the basis of data collected from Florida Exit polls. But there was some minor call back and results were withdrawn and Bush was named the victor next morning. The closeness of this situation demanded for an automatic recount, then in the initial vote count it was found that there exists a significant difference between Gore and Bush vote count hence the decision was reversed.
This was a straight forward situation which demanded a simple and clear path towards resolution of this problem i.e. count all votes and declares the winner. However it was not simple and easy as it was though out to be, and in the end it was found the Florida winner will not be ascertained through vote counting but the situation demanded a legal battle between each candidate. Hence for representing each party lawyer was called who wasdirected to put forwarded the interests of each candidate towards the Supreme Court of United States. This decision finally made an overturn in earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling and it is decided to finalize this matter through legal and political processes (Jasanoff, 2007).
This scenario and real life evidences above have highlighted four significant points which are:
It was ascertained that voting and balloting is a simple process which is being done from several years without any errors. However in this situation a simple system depicted surprising behavior. It was found that the precious 52 elections were not enough for revealing all possible system behaviors. Hence accurate predictions can never be attained for real life situations but estimates and probable values can be guessed to some extent for future outcomes.
Second uncertainty which became obvious was that Florida elections were no doubt existed in all elections but this entire situation turned out to be significant as the elections were so close that both sides were visualizing themselves as either potential winners or losers. The final outcome was to determine the stakes and the presidency would be determined solely on this outcome.
Third the dispute never got resolved and both parties were subjected to technical aspects of the vote count but the underlying fact was that it was all subjugated by the judicial and political procedures. The legitimate results were interpreted as a negotiation among the competing parties and there existed no transparency in any aspect. However both leaders and their followers agreed on the rules presented by the legal proceedings and accepted the Supreme Court decision. Moreover it was declared that these results are not final and permanent they will be revisited in the next elections.
If in this situation any technical approach would have been taken for overcoming the uncertainty about the vote count then both parties would have been subjected to parameters of scientific methods. Moreover such close attention of public would also not have been attained for resolution of the conflict quickly, legitimately and decisively.
