# Re: Election Data

• From: "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa redhat com>
• Subject: Re: Election Data
• Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:58:03 -0400

```On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 12:47 -0700, CLAY S wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:40, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa redhat com>
> wrote:
>         That is some fascinating extrapolation you've got going on
>         there. By
>
>         fascinating, I mean horrifying.
>
>         +1 to keeping Fedora's data as far away as possible from such
>         absurd
>         leaps of statistics.
>
> You could provide even a single objective scientific/mathematical flaw
> instead of using emotional descriptors like horrifying?

"1. Suppose the USA, by adopting range voting, lowers the risk of a
2-billion population crash in 50 years, by 5%. I consider this a
conservative estimate."

There is no evidence whatsoever to correlate the type of voting
mechanism used with the risk of a "2-billion population crash in 50
years".

I could just as reliably say:

"1. Suppose the USA, by eating Cheezy Poofs, lowers the risk of a
2-billion population crash in 50 years, by 5%. I consider this a
conservative estimate."

Well, hot damn. Let's start eating more Cheezy Poofs.

The fact that such nonsense came out of the mouth (or keyboard) of
someone with a PhD doesn't make it more (or to be fair, less)
reasonable.

If I wanted anyone to take me seriously, I would first have to show some
kind of concrete proof that the consumption of Cheezy Poofs has any
effect on a "2-billion population crash in 50 years", not to tell people
that it just does (damnit!). Haven't you read anything published in the
snack food academia in the last twenty years? It's obvious!

"Figures often beguile me," Twain wrote, "particularly when I have the
arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to
Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three
kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

And now, like Seth, I am off this thread like a dirty shirt.

~spot

```