A “rigged” election? Chance (Spring 2004) presented data from a recent election held to determine the board of directors of a local community. There were 27 candidates for the board, and each of 5,553 voters was allowed to choose 6 candidates. The claim was that “a fixed vote with fixed percentages [was] assigned to each and every candidate, making it impossible to participate in an honest election.” Votes were tallied in six time slots: after 600 total votes were in, after 1,200, after 2,444, after 3,444, after 4,444, and, finally, after 5,553 votes. The data on three of the candidates (Smith, Coppin, and Montes) are shown in the accompanying table. A residential organization believes that “there was nothing random about the count and tallies for each time slot, and specific unnatural or rigged percentages were being assigned to each and every candidate.” Give your opinion. Is the probability of a candidate receiving votes independent of the time slot, and if so, does this imply a rigged election?

Time Slot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Votes for Smith 208 208 451 392 351 410 Votes for Coppin 55 51 109 98 88 104 Votes for Montes 133 117 255 211 186 227 Total Votes 600 600 1,244 1,000 1,000 1,109 Interval x 6 -2 -2 … x 6 -1 -1 … x 6 0 0 … x 6 1 1 … x 6 2 x Ú 2 Frequency 10 22 55 68 29 16