A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PROOF THAT NEOCONS ARE STUPID



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 15th 04, 07:43 PM
Jack G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.




  #2  
Old September 15th 04, 08:01 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!


Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?

Brooks


Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than

a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.






  #3  
Old September 15th 04, 08:18 PM
Jack G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I never mentioned Electoral votes in my post. The topic of Art's post was
the popular vote.

Jack G.
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!


Uhmmm...I believe his point is in regards to the votes that actually
count--the Electoral College ones. ISTR Bush got more of those?

Brooks


Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less

than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.








  #4  
Old September 15th 04, 08:04 PM
Leslie Swartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jack:

I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the explanations
before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
addition (your omission) illuminating:

Mechanical Tally Error:
Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
Go 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)

Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee etc.
ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")

So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.

So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could have
gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
higher than Bush's.

Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just the
mechanical error of the vote counting machines.

Steve


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.






  #5  
Old September 15th 04, 08:32 PM
Jack G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have no visibility of other posts that included the table I originally
posted - so yes I did ignore what I can not see.

The numbers that count are the official vote counts. The statistical
analysis is an interesting study - but does not change the official count.

Jack


"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Jack:

I suspect that you are the same guy who kept ignoring all the

explanations
before, and kept posting and reposting that table. If so, then the
following is a waste of bandwidth; if not, you might find the following
addition (your omission) illuminating:

Mechanical Tally Error:
Bush: 47.87 +/- 3.23 % (95% two-tailed confidence interval)
Go 48.38 +- 3.23 % (95% two tailed confidence interval)

Ballot Undercount Error, 2% - 7% local 3% estimated average (absentee etc.
ballots "not counted because they have no material effect on outcome")

So conservatively, the 0.51% difference between the two vote count totals
represents about a standard deviation's worth of difference.

So in other words, we are 80% confident that the true vote count could

have
gone either way; and only 20% confident that Gore's total was actually
higher than Bush's.

Not counting, of course, fraud and/or uncounted ballots. This is just the
mechanical error of the vote counting machines.

Steve


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:h302d.8184$5t4.4608@trnddc01...
From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Popular Vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 47.87%
Go 50,999,897 48.38%

Looks like more to me!

Jack G.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...
Do your homework.


"Jack G" wrote in message
news:FVO1d.3647$g9.70@trnddc06...
Art, can you name the other presidents who were elected with less

than
a
majority of the popular vote? Or have you forgotten them?

Jack G.








  #9  
Old September 15th 04, 11:34 PM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Leadfoot" wrote

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of

50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????


A straight popular vote would have the candidates only care about 3
*cities*. NYC, Chicago, and LA
The metro areas of those cities comprise ~40 million people. Equal to the 23
smallest states.

Is THAT a good idea?

Pete


  #10  
Old September 16th 04, 02:30 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article odY1d.299698$Oi.13601@fed1read04,
"Leadfoot" writes:

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????


Yes.

If we went to a strict popularity contest (Popular vote only) we'd have
a system where only 6 or 7 out of 50 States count - (And not even all
ovf those - The areas that would dominate are a few cities and their
suburbs) IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? Hell, no! Especially when one considers
that these urban areas are net resource sinks - they don't produce
enough of anything to survive, and are dependant an the rest of the
Nation. Giving them unconstrained power to do as they will is a Really
Bad Idea. Think of the conditions that led to the downfall of Rome.
It wouldn't be much different at all.

The Electoral College is a very clever scheme to weight things such
that the rest of teh country gets a voice. It's still largely
weighted by population, but the poetion of the Electoral votes that
are tied to a States existance ('bout 19%) provide a damper on the
dangers of Tyrrany of the Majority. The balance is such that the
Electoral Vote follows the Popular Vote in the main - until the race
is too close to reliably call. It then applies just enough feedback
to prevent the possibility of someone seizing power by only influencing
a few Political Machines (As, indeed existed back in the days of the
Articles of Confederation) to swing his way.

The good news is there is an advantage for some of us as we don't get
inundated with crap campaign commercials on TV


The even better news is that my vote counts more than yours. That's
not a slap at you, personally. It means that we end up with a nation
of equal Citizens - not denizens of a few over-populated conurbations
milking the productive parts of the Nation.

The Founding Fathers wer clever folks.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________-+__ ihuvpe RobertR237 Home Built 84 November 26th 04 05:19 PM
(NEOCONS) GOING BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM MORRIS434 Military Aviation 0 April 23rd 04 02:29 PM
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil Ewe n0 who Military Aviation 1 April 9th 04 11:25 PM
No End to War Grantland Military Aviation 0 March 26th 04 04:20 AM
De Borchgrave: WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, and Neocons MORRIS434 Military Aviation 0 February 12th 04 08:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.