From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:30:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.232451.15196@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>In article <NEERI.92Sep9134509@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep8.210623.6097@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>>
>>>Ron Paul got 432,179 votes.  Fulani got only 217,219.
>>>How is that "almost as many"?
>>
>>Close enough, considering that Ron Paul got not much more than 1% of the votes
>>of Dukakis.
>
>Interesting mathematics.
>
>Half as much and "almost as many" are "close enough".

No, a difference of 0.22% of all people voting is close enough. If you prefer
numbers relative to the LP's voters: A difference which is about ONE THIRD of
the fluctuation of the Libertarian Party's vote during the 80ies (>1'000'000 in
'80, 432'000 in '88, how many votes did they get in '84, anyway ?) is close
enough. 

>>>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest of
>>>any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, Ed Clark
>>>got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  
>>>
>>>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES 
>>>PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  
>>
>>... if you conveniently omit that John Anderson, an independent candidate, got
>>MORE THAN 5%.
>
>I also omitted Carter.

Carter is 2nd party.

>Yes, Anderson was either an independent or a renegade Republican (your call).
>He was not a "third-party" candidate.
>
>My statement stands:  In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes 
>than ALL OTHER 3rd PARTIES PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  

He was not a third party candidate in the sense that he was not backed by any
political party, but, like the third party candidates, he was not supported by
any of the two big parties, so I don't think it is entirely correct not to
mention him.

>>Party #2 got almost 100 times
>>the vote of party #3. Party #4 got more than four times the vote of party #5.
>>Party #3 got about twice the vote of party #4. So it seems reasonable to
>>consider the two partys about in the same league of importance.
>
>Interesting Math, again.  
>
>You have a weird, non-objective definition of "reasonable".
>
>If the Demoblicans consistently got only half as many votes as the Replicrats,
>who got more votes than all other parties put together, would you still say
>that the two parties are "about in the same league"?

In your scenario, you're leaving out the important factor that there are *much*
larger parties running in the same election. I'll counter it with an equally
distorting scenario:

Suppose A and B would enter a long jump competition against Carl Lewis. Lewis
jumps 8.50m, A reaches 0.85m, and B reaches 0.42m. Would you consider it fair
to say that A and B are about in the same league?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections