IGX

With a population of 311,591,917 what is the probability that two parties can split 50/50 and end up with two completely ideas of how to make life better for all the people?

Is that a math problem?

No, that's a smoke and mirrors problem so the minions squabble amongst themselves while the big wigs carry on doing exactly as they wish.

Gav wrote:No, that's a smoke and mirrors problem so the minions squabble amongst themselves while the big wigs carry on doing exactly as they wish.

I see. How does one learn to read smoke and mirror stuff?

Andy79 wrote: two parties...two completely different ideas

Andy79 wrote:

Gav wrote:No, that's a smoke and mirrors problem so the minions squabble amongst themselves while the big wigs carry on doing exactly as they wish.

I see. How does one learn to read smoke and mirror stuff?

You don't. Just carry on with the Mannatech, elastic bands, beer and smokes and all will be fine.

Andy79 wrote:With a population of 311,591,917 what is the probability that two parties can split 50/50 and end up with two completely ideas of how to make life better for all the people?

Is that a math problem?

Andy,

It's a problem of the human spirit. The answer is learning to believe in the audacity of hope, to embrace change we can believe in, and to affirm the power of the creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes we can.

It's a probability problem, using sampling without replacement scheme following the hypergeometric distribution.

Nate Silver's most important work (with coauthors).

One of the motivations for voting is that one vote can make a difference. In a
presidential election, the probability that your vote is decisive is equal to the probability
that your state is necessary for an electoral college win, times the probability the vote in
your state is tied in that event. We computed these probabilities a week before the 2008
presidential election, using state-by-state election forecasts based on the latest polls.
The states where a single vote was most likely to matter are New Mexico, Virginia,
New Hampshire, and Colorado, where your vote had an approximate 1 in 10 million
chance of determining the national election outcome. On average, a voter in America
had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the presidential election.

Don't forget to buy a lottery ticket on the way home from the polls.

I watched a very intellecual looking white man say that on Wednesday we'll wake up to see that one side won and the other side lost. Is that stastically possible?

Pinky wrote:Nate Silver's most important work (with coauthors).

One of the motivations for voting is that one vote can make a difference. In a
presidential election, the probability that your vote is decisive is equal to the probability
that your state is necessary for an electoral college win, times the probability the vote in
your state is tied in that event. We computed these probabilities a week before the 2008
presidential election, using state-by-state election forecasts based on the latest polls.
The states where a single vote was most likely to matter are New Mexico, Virginia,
New Hampshire, and Colorado, where your vote had an approximate 1 in 10 million
chance of determining the national election outcome. On average, a voter in America
had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the presidential election.

Don't forget to buy a lottery ticket on the way home from the polls.

Irrelevant-- this isn't the 2008 election. The odds have completely changed.

In the two of the last three presidential election cycles, odds have been completely different.

Case in point:

Smalley/Coleman in 2008 (that result mattered on the POTUS' signature legislation)
Bush/Gore in Oregon and Florida

He didn't get Illinois right either-- unless you still consider the dead voters.

judobrian wrote:It's a probability problem, using sampling without replacement scheme following the hypergeometric distribution.

now this dude

this dud'es fucking smart

I had to google most of those words

judobrian wrote:It's a probability problem, using sampling without replacement scheme following the hypergeometric distribution.

I sampled without replacement from a box of doughnuts this morning.

I'm not making a prediction this time. The samples are too contaminated with bullshit.

judobrian wrote:It's a probability problem, using sampling without replacement scheme following the hypergeometric distribution.

I feel like I've just been prescribed a placebo.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:

Andy79 wrote:With a population of 311,591,917 what is the probability that two parties can split 50/50 and end up with two completely ideas of how to make life better for all the people?

Is that a math problem?

Andy,

It's a problem of the human spirit. The answer is learning to believe in the audacity of hope, to embrace change we can believe in, and to affirm the power of the creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes we can.

That's beautiful. Did you learn that in Auschwitz?

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:Nate Silver's most important work (with coauthors).

One of the motivations for voting is that one vote can make a difference. In a
presidential election, the probability that your vote is decisive is equal to the probability
that your state is necessary for an electoral college win, times the probability the vote in
your state is tied in that event. We computed these probabilities a week before the 2008
presidential election, using state-by-state election forecasts based on the latest polls.
The states where a single vote was most likely to matter are New Mexico, Virginia,
New Hampshire, and Colorado, where your vote had an approximate 1 in 10 million
chance of determining the national election outcome. On average, a voter in America
had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the presidential election.

Don't forget to buy a lottery ticket on the way home from the polls.

Irrelevant-- this isn't the 2008 election. The odds have completely changed.

In the two of the last three presidential election cycles, odds have been completely different.

Case in point:

Smalley/Coleman in 2008 (that result mattered on the POTUS' signature legislation)
Bush/Gore in Oregon and Florida

He didn't get Illinois right either-- unless you still consider the dead voters.

You missed the point entirely. You could do the same calculation for any presidential election and the result will be similar: if you live in a swing state, the probability of your vote affecting the election is very small. If you don't live in a swing state, that probability is much smaller.

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:Nate Silver's most important work (with coauthors).

One of the motivations for voting is that one vote can make a difference. In a
presidential election, the probability that your vote is decisive is equal to the probability
that your state is necessary for an electoral college win, times the probability the vote in
your state is tied in that event. We computed these probabilities a week before the 2008
presidential election, using state-by-state election forecasts based on the latest polls.
The states where a single vote was most likely to matter are New Mexico, Virginia,
New Hampshire, and Colorado, where your vote had an approximate 1 in 10 million
chance of determining the national election outcome. On average, a voter in America
had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the presidential election.

Don't forget to buy a lottery ticket on the way home from the polls.

Irrelevant-- this isn't the 2008 election. The odds have completely changed.

In the two of the last three presidential election cycles, odds have been completely different.

Case in point:

Smalley/Coleman in 2008 (that result mattered on the POTUS' signature legislation)
Bush/Gore in Oregon and Florida

He didn't get Illinois right either-- unless you still consider the dead voters.

You missed the point entirely. You could do the same calculation for any presidential election and the result will be similar: if you live in a swing state, the probability of your vote affecting the election is very small. If you don't live in a swing state, that probability is much smaller.

Ok-- a scenario. What are the chances that a vote in a state with 2000000 voters will matter? Both candidates are polling at 47% and there is a 2.2% margin of error (on a poll of 2000 people that answered the phone and claimed to be registered voters)?

Turdacious wrote:Ok-- a scenario. What are the chances that a vote in a state with 2000000 voters will matter? Both candidates are polling at 47% and there is a 2.2% margin of error (on a poll of 2000 people that answered the phone and claimed to be registered voters)?

Very small, but still much larger than the chance a vote in California will matter. If you live in such a state and you think the difference between candidates is large (or the value of your time is very low), I can understand voting.

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Ok-- a scenario. What are the chances that a vote in a state with 2000000 voters will matter? Both candidates are polling at 47% and there is a 2.2% margin of error (on a poll of 2000 people that answered the phone and claimed to be registered voters)?

Very small, but still much larger than the chance a vote in California will matter. If you live in such a state and you think the difference between candidates is large (or the value of your time is very low), I can understand voting.

In my district a vote for the House seat is statistically less important than the vote for the Senate seat or the Presidency.

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:Ok-- a scenario. What are the chances that a vote in a state with 2000000 voters will matter? Both candidates are polling at 47% and there is a 2.2% margin of error (on a poll of 2000 people that answered the phone and claimed to be registered voters)?

Very small, but still much larger than the chance a vote in California will matter. If you live in such a state and you think the difference between candidates is large (or the value of your time is very low), I can understand voting.

In my district a vote for the House seat is statistically less important than the vote for the Senate seat or the Presidency.

That's because you live in "Occupied" Virginia.

protobuilder wrote:

judobrian wrote:It's a probability problem, using sampling without replacement scheme following the hypergeometric distribution.

I had to google most of those words

Would've been safer to click links.

I vote so I can hit on the old ladies who work the polling station

nafod wrote:I vote so I can hit on the old ladies who work the polling station

That's what I do! Some of them got big tits!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47834.html

google this to get access to the article w/o paying the WSJ: "Health-Care Law Spurs a Shift to Part-Time Workers"

A sign of things to come?

"Some low-wage employers are moving toward hiring part-time workers instead of full-time ones to mitigate the health-care overhaul's requirement that large companies provide health insurance for full-time workers or pay a fee.

Several restaurants, hotels and retailers have started or are preparing to limit schedules of hourly workers to below 30 hours a week. That is the threshold at which large employers in 2014 would have to offer workers a minimum level of insurance or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 for each worker.

The shift is one of the first significant steps by employers to avoid requirements under the health-care law, and whether the trend continues hinges on Tuesday's election results. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the Affordable Care Act, although he would face obstacles doing so.

President Barack Obama is set to push ahead with implementing the 2010 law if he is re-elected."

It goes on to describe several examples of companies doing just that.

Old news. I know a woman with a small baby who's working 3 part time jobs. She averages $7.35 an hour. She counts for 3 jobs that Obumnuts "created". And there are millions of others doing the same thing just to stay alive.