21–30 of 267 posts
I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.
I didn't know that felons weren't allowed to vote in the US - this was news to me. Looks like it varies by state: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
Can I just say the visualisation on this article is fantastic. Worth checking out even if you have little interest in the topic in the title.
NY Times has been impressing me a lot with their online editions. To the point I'm considering to actually pay for the content. Another very good visualisation from them is the Panama Channel article http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/world/americas...
I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.
Except I'd venture it would not be a good sample as it's not necessarily very statistically representative of the whole population (ie. random)? Of whether the people choosing the candidates have to be or even should be statistically representative of the whole population can be argued. The choice of candidates or order on ballots in many countries is decided by various less-than-representative groups.
That's pure conjecture as the article doesn't address the sample at all. It just basically says "The sample is 9%". It doesn't say why this is bad.
What astounds me the most is that party membership in the United States is actually very high compared to most other countries (except for India). Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) - and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures. Most AFL football clubs would have more membe…
Where as this is just stating the obvious of what happens in every country that first puts forward a leader of a party that is contending to win the overall election.
I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.
I didn't know that felons weren't allowed to vote in the US - this was news to me. Looks like it varies by state: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
This is especially cruel because it doesn't take much to be labeled a felon in the US.