Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

In article ,
says...
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"Fiona Reynolds" writes:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

A Muzi wrote:

Well, I did. And I wrote RNC two checks this summer.

I am deeply disappointed that you chose to underwrite the political
manifestation of bigotry, deception, greed, and mass murder. On
ordinary matters of political issues, I am willing to differ, but for
this I am afraid I can no longer count you among my friends.

The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him.

Don't you mean "misunderestimating" him?

He is a disgrace to the country and so are his supporters. I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

Chalo Colina

A Muzi wrote:

Well, I did. And I wrote RNC two checks this summer.

I am deeply disappointed that you chose to underwrite the political
manifestation of bigotry, deception, greed, and mass murder. On
ordinary matters of political issues, I am willing to differ, but for
this I am afraid I can no longer count you among my friends.

The pervasive view of this sharp and motivated man of action
as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' works very much to his favor.
Thanks for underestimating him.

Don't you mean "misunderestimating" him?

He is a disgrace to the country and so are his supporters. I can't
fathom the twisted lack of ordinary decency that would allow ordinary
folk to actively promote Bush's vile mixture of injustice, lies and
butchery, and frankly I don't wish to understand it. It would only
make me a lesser person to do so.

Chalo Colina

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
inspire people to vote.


I guess that's why this was the biggest turnout in election history.

In US election history for total numbers of voters, yes.

Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of
better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.

So, Tom, how many of these countries had populations exceeding 100 million?

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
Tom Kunich wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Or maybe both the candidates with a chance of winning did nothing to
inspire people to vote.


I guess that's why this was the biggest turnout in election history.

In US election history for total numbers of voters, yes.

Many recent elections in other countries have had voter turnouts of
better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the 2004 US election to shame.

So, Tom, how many of these countries had populations exceeding 100 million?

David Kerber wrote:
In article ,
says...

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...

"Fiona Reynolds" writes:


It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?


I believe it's about 1%.

Assuming a normal distribution:
The 95% confidence level occurs at about 2 standard deviations, so
the standard deviation in this case is about 3%/2 = 1.5%. The question
then is for the probability for the true value to be more than
8%/1.5% = 5.3 standard deviations from the mean. That probability is
about 0.00002%. Of course this assumes that the distribution really
follows a normal curve very precisely.

David Kerber wrote:
In article ,
says...

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...

"Fiona Reynolds" writes:


It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?


I believe it's about 1%.

Assuming a normal distribution:
The 95% confidence level occurs at about 2 standard deviations, so
the standard deviation in this case is about 3%/2 = 1.5%. The question
then is for the probability for the true value to be more than
8%/1.5% = 5.3 standard deviations from the mean. That probability is
about 0.00002%. Of course this assumes that the distribution really
follows a normal curve very precisely.

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
om...
....
Explain to me why the USA is so bad.
....

I realize that your reply is to Tom Sherman, but since I'm quoted I have to
ask: Who says that the USA is so bad? If you look at the link that I
provided, you'll see that the USA in 2000 topped every country in the
Presidential Elections category except Austria when comparing percentages of
registered voters who voted. This is according to your reference of

http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf

and my reference of

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

I don't see how that equates to "bad".

Chuck Davis

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
om...
....
Explain to me why the USA is so bad.
....

I realize that your reply is to Tom Sherman, but since I'm quoted I have to
ask: Who says that the USA is so bad? If you look at the link that I
provided, you'll see that the USA in 2000 topped every country in the
Presidential Elections category except Austria when comparing percentages of
registered voters who voted. This is according to your reference of

http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).pdf

and my reference of

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf

I don't see how that equates to "bad".

Chuck Davis

"Chuck Davis" wrote in message
...
| "Tom Sherman" wrote in message
| ...
| ...
| Don't be stupid.
|
| Here is voter turnout data for representative democracies in Europe.
| Except for Switzerland, all are well ahead of the US in voter turnout.
|
http://www.idea.int/publications/voter_turnout_weurope/part%20II%20(78-93).
pdf.
|
| --
| Tom Sherman
|
| Wow! That's a new record! I usually have to say a lot more before I'm
| called "stupid". Your comment "Many recent elections in other countries
| have had voter turnouts of better than 90%, which puts the ~59% of the
2004
| US election to shame." implies a direct relationship between "betterness"
| and voter turnout. That's how I read it.
|
| You certainly know more than I do in that area (no sarcasm intended). I
see
| from your document that Austria, for example, is way up there. I have no
| idea what the issues and candidates are and have been. Maybe most people
| see major shifts in government policy that will affect them directly and
| that motivates them to vote. Conversely, maybe U.S. voters saw it as six
of
| one, a half dozen of the other. Maybe Austria's history is a motivator.
| Why is Switzerland lower than the U.S.? I just don't have enough
| information to judge the shamefulness of a ~59% turnout.
|
| I also noticed that the document you refer to shows the percentage of
| "registered" voters who actually voted. According to
|
| http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p20-542.pdf
|
| the percentage of "registered" voters in the U.S. who actually voted in
the
| 2000 election is about 85%. I couldn't find a figure for this election.
In
| order to make a more valid comparison, we need the number of eligible
voters
| from those European countries who actually vote. I saw that was referred
to
| as VAP in your document, but I couldn't find any figures.
|
| Regardless, I appreciate each and every person who didn't vote who could
| have - it makes my vote worth that much more.
|
| Chuck Davis
|
....Regardless, I appreciate each and every person who didn't vote who could
have - it makes my vote worth that much more....

Chuck Davis

That's always been my feeling as well.
The perfect election results will only occur when everyone other than myself
stays home.

Further, the 'get-out-the-vote' nonsense is what brings out the newly
registered voter who had to ask: "What does incumbent mean next to this
guy's name?"

ED3