i'm with ya. i doubt the recount is gonna show anything though....TrumpsHair wrote:.
BTW. Kerry won. The recount in Ohio will show that Bush is monkey-man.
swingdoc's last post made my brain implode. damn i am dumb.
i'm with ya. i doubt the recount is gonna show anything though....TrumpsHair wrote:.
BTW. Kerry won. The recount in Ohio will show that Bush is monkey-man.
I like the necklace-of-scorpions description. Those European coalitions definitely spice up the political world, but they do have the drawback of giving those 2nd runner ups more political representation/power than is warranted by their popular support.apropos of nothing wrote:I like the necklace-of-scorpions northern-European style parliments where the leading party and the 2nd runner-up party have to form a coalition, without which they'll both be immobilized. That's pretty awesome. Combine that with executive veto power, and you've got a pretty decent system of checks-and.
Hey Mark-swingdoc wrote:Oh boy, heres what I did tonight....
Here's a brief statistical look at the numbers of the 2 recounts (machine/ hand); (Applied just for Rossi/Gregoire)
Machine:
All other counties excluding King:
total votes 1,887,963 Change: +26 Rossi (0.001377%);
King: 856,963 Change : +245 gregoire (0.02859%)
Hand:
All other counties excluding King:
total votes: 1,889,094 Change +7 Rossi (0.0003705%);
King 857,500 change +179 gregoire (0.020875%)
Combined:
All other counties excluding King: total votes recounted: 3,777,058 +33 Rossi (0.00087369%)
King: 1,694,463 + 424 gregoire (0.0250227%)
So my quick math shows that the change rate in all other counties is just 35/1000ths of the change rate in King Co.
Or this is to say, King county changed their votes by a factor of 286 times (or 2,864%) the rate that all other counties combined changed their votes.
I did the probablity determination using chi-squared analysis.
Sounds like this:
I used all the counties except King County as the control, or that which demonstrates the expected vote change rate of the recount.
The rate of vote change (unilateral) was +33 out of 3,777,058 or 0.000873%
So, the same expected rate of change for King Co (1,694,463) would be +14 , but the actual observed number was 424.
We want to know whether this reflects a statistically significant variation, or whether it's just coincidence. Statistical calculations cannot of course answer this definitively, but we can answer a related one: If the rate of change is determined at 0.00873%, what is the probability of 424 votes changing out of 1,694,463 votes?
Here's the answer:
P value and statistical significance:
Chi squared equals 12007.242 with 1 degrees of freedom.
The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.
So there it is. Based purely on the numbers of the rate of vote change, (King County compared to all others) I do not believe that one can reasonably assume random variation in the way the votes changed.
If it was not random, then by definition it must be considered a guided or biased change.
Notice too, that this is simply a numerical analysis of the variation of the recounting, or a review of the proposed system "error" rate.
I must conclude therefore that there is absolutely no scientific confidence in the recount changes (King Co vs all others) as being a random statistical event.
Take care ya'll,
and Merry Christmas,
Mark
did you happen to catch his "copy guy" shoes that he was wearing?marqueemoon wrote:I'm not going to lie. I took great pleasure in watching Dino Rossi demand a re-vote on the news last night (looking every bit the whiny little bitch), but I want our governor to be the person the people of this state voted for. If we need a re-vote to decide the outcome, then I'll be among the first in line.
Same address? Are you talking about the same county or actual same address? And does it bug you like it would bug me if the reverse were true but the votes came from Spokane like as in "ah dang, those votes are totally going to help the other person" or does it bug you like "Those votes can't be legit."?MASSIVE Mastering wrote:Here's what I have a problem with - Either winner, doesn't matter...
Original vote - R
First recount - R
Second recount - R
Then suddenly, 700-ish votes are "found" - That's one thing. However, the fact that 550 of them are from the same address bugs me.
But I'm sure none of you find that the least bit suspicious, as long as the "D" wins, right?
Uhhh, Dude...you're like, tripping me out. Actually, I'm impressed that you actually took the time to gather those numbers and do the math. But wouldn't you rather be working on your music?swingdoc wrote:Oh boy, heres what I did tonight....
Here's the answer:
P value and statistical significance:
Chi squared equals 12007.242 with 1 degrees of freedom.
The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.
Ha! If that's a reply to my tirade, I'm LMAO. Long live Rhodes AND his totally rad hair! Honestly.Walnut Studios wrote:Fuck that. Rule Cascadia!!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests