Meaningless Election Statistics

[Mark Beesley]

Some totally meaningless statistics from the election.

Four states were entirely Red, i.e, Obama failed to carry a single county:

Alaska

West Virginia

Oklahoma

Utah

Four states were entirely Blue, i.e. Romney failed to carry a single county:

Hawaii

Vermont

Rhode Island

Massachusetts (Romney's home state)

Out of 114 counties in MIssouri, Obama won in three of them, one of which was Jackson County. (Perhaps the best argument for a religion based outcome. )

Hancock County, the home of Nauvoo and Carthage, voted for Romney. (Perhaps the best argument against a religion based outcome. )

[Nofear]

In Nebraska Pres. Obama lost every single county except one -- and that happens to be the county which had the lowest voter turnout of the state (47% compared to the average of 66%).

[Damien the Leper]

Out of 114 counties in MIssouri, Obama won in three of them, one of which was Jackson County. (Perhaps the best argument for a religion based outcome. )

Community of Christ...and their apostate influences for social progression.

Hancock County, the home of Nauvoo and Carthage, voted for Romney. (Perhaps the best argument against a religion based outcome. )

Ha ha ha! Nice try, bud.

[Damien the Leper]

In Nebraska Pres. Obama lost every single county except one -- and that happens to be the county which had the lowest voter turnout of the state (47% compared to the average of 66%).

Is there anything more irrelevant in Nebraska other than Winter Quarters and Doane College?

[noel00]

Nat Silver certainly renewed my interest in statistics.

[Calm]

Nat Silver certainly renewed my interest in statistics.

Asimov did that for me with his Foundation series, combining two of my interests, psychology/sociology/anthropology and math.

[Kenngo1969]

Is there anything more irrelevant in Nebraska other than Winter Quarters and Doane College?

???

P.S.: To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I'm wondering if that statement means what you think it means?!

[Kenngo1969]

Some totally meaningless statistics from the election.

Four states were entirely Red, i.e, Obama failed to carry a single county:

Alaska

West Virginia

Oklahoma

Utah

Four states were entirely Blue, i.e. Romney failed to carry a single county:

Hawaii

Vermont

Rhode Island

Massachusetts (Romney's home state)

Out of 114 counties in MIssouri, Obama won in three of them, one of which was Jackson County. (Perhaps the best argument for a religion based outcome. )

Hancock County, the home of Nauvoo and Carthage, voted for Romney. (Perhaps the best argument against a religion based outcome. )

This is almost completely (but not entirely) off-topic, but does anyone (else) think we should we make the Electoral College proportional?

[Damien the Leper]

???

P.S.: To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I'm wondering if that statement means what you think it means?!

What do you think I mean? I was just taking a shot at Nebraska. Kinda like being condemned to Wisconsin would be worse than Outer Darkness.

[Mark Beesley]

Another not-entirely-meaningless statistic: According to exit polling, Romney garnered 79 percent of the white, evangelical, Christian vote, which is a higher percentage than John McCain won in 2008.

See CNN story in it's Belief Section.

[Mark Beesley]

This is almost completely (but not entirely) off-topic, but does anyone (else) think we should we make the Electoral College proportional?

That would be akin to abolishing it, and yes, I think we should abolish it.

[thesometimesaint]

This is almost completely (but not entirely) off-topic, but does anyone (else) think we should we make the Electoral College proportional?

No. I think we should do away with it entirely.

[The Nehor]

This is almost completely (but not entirely) off-topic, but does anyone (else) think we should we make the Electoral College proportional?

We already can. It is up to each state to decide how their electoral votes are distributed. Maine and Nebraska kind of already do.

The reason no state wants to change:

1. It would weaken the "prize" of being won and cause candidates to campaign less there.

2. The party in power in the state legislature will probably also carry the vote for the Presidency and there is no reason to weaken that support.

No. I think we should do away with it entirely.

Philistine. Election night would be much more dull if states weren't changing colors and all we had to look at was numbers going up.

Fun Fact: The original purpose of the Electoral College was probably to let Congress select the President and Vice-President and just have the Electoral College pick candidates.

[blackstrap]

Just curious,but how do we know how a specific group votes,ie EVs,whites, black orthodox Jews etc.? Sampling? exit polls? demographic location? probabilistic analyses? If my neighbor doesn't know how I voted,how does the government? ( cue conspiracy type music )

[Duncan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4-v4Zay7eM

take it from me there is no such thing as the "Lord Selkin" Highway

[Calm]

take it from me there is no such thing as the "Lord Selkin" Highway

and that is what comes from not double checkling the research, what is probably a typo by his researcher makes him look like an idiot.

[BCSpace]

This is almost completely (but not entirely) off-topic, but does anyone (else) think we should we make the Electoral College proportional?

That would be akin to abolishing it, and yes, I think we should abolish it.

We should NOT abolish this constitutional check and balance on a few large (populous) states controlling the rest of the country. Because of the electoral college, a small amount of power is transferred to the smaller states because every state has two Senators regardless of population; each state gets an electoral vote for each member of Congress, House and Senate.

[BCSpace]

Some totally meaningless statistics from the election.

Here's one that's not meaningless by a long shot:

In the fierce headline debate over the so-called fiscal cliff, our newly reelected president argues that “a majority of Americans agree with [his] approach.” That approach, according to the president, is “to combine spending cuts with revenue — and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes.”

Well, that’s not exactly what the exit polls said.

To the question “Should taxes be raised to help cut the budget deficit?” only 33% answered “yes” while 63% responded “no.” Isn’t that interesting? Nobody’s talking about this exit-poll nugget.

http://www.nysun.com...aying-no/88069/