----- Original Message -----
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo
>
> So, does that mean you were cherry-picking my 2004 analysis? ;-)
Huh? All I left out from my last analysis was , and I quote from your
post:
"NV - 5, NM - 5, IA - 7, WI - 10, OH - 20, PA - 21, FL - 27, and NH - 4"
So lets step through the population and electoral vote numbers. I know our
electoral vote numbers match, and I got population numbers for 2000 and
2003 from two different sources and the results vary slightly...as one
might expect.
Below, are my calculations for your stages 1-4. Each time you stopped and
gave comparative numbers, I labeled it a stage.
Bush
pop (mil) elect. Vote pop/vote (thou)
stage 1 67.8 133 510
stage 2 96.7 187 517
stage 3 114.3 222 515
stage 4 139.0 264 527
pop (mil) elect. Vote pop/vote (thou)
stage 1 86.3 150 575
stage 2 101.9 179 569
stage 3 121.9 217 562
stage 4 139.0 264 562
Nowhere do I get anything close to your numbers.
I have a hunch I know what you did. I think you averaged the ratios. I
took the ratio of the sums of the population and electoral votes. The
latter has to represent the real advantage in an election. If you don't
believe me, I'd be happy to walk through a hypothetical example.
> Overall, I find it very difficult to believe that the Electoral College
>is atrociously weighted towards the Republicans.
I don't doubt it. But, my question is can you either accept my population
numbers or help me see how they are wrong? My source for the numbers given
above is:
http://www.michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451_28388_28392-83199--,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/42nv6
You could also show me why using sums is wrong...but I'm pretty sure that's
what happens in the votes.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
