Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Greeno
Posts:
3
Registered:
2/19/09


Re: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough  Statistically Feasible?
Posted:
Nov 8, 2012 10:05 PM



Maybe it wasn't all that far off topic.
The initial, ultrasimplistic, leftright model might be expanded into one that better reflects realities. The voting population has many *dimensions of concern* (issues, sentiments, values, plights, projections, etc.) ... along which each individual's voter's preference might be some number [as some would have it] between 10 (very strongly opposed) and +10 (very strongly favoring).
Within that multidimensional space of voter concerns, each voter thus carries his or her profile ... as does each population. Also, along each dimension, the voter's numeric "placevalue" rating for each dimension is weighted by that voter (say in %) with regard for how important that dimension is, to that voter ... likewise for populations. [Some elections were just backlashlost because some candidates recently infuriated voters ... about matters very dear to their hearts.]
When each such multidimensional voterprofile must be collapsed into a single vote for A or B, the final tally might not be at all indicative that one or the other was too much/little "this or that" ... based on clustering voter dispositions into opposing "this"/"that" categories ... as politicians must try to do. The decisive factor might not be those categories, at all ... e.g. not conservative or liberal, but who was funnier at the debates.
Meanwhile, back at mathedcc, the nation's TYC teachers of mathematics are continually voting about proposals for curriculum reforms. The voters might be classified as "conservatives" or "liberals" or in between. But their votes reflect their individual profiles within the context of who is concerned about what ... and how much so, along each dimension. The decisive dimensions of concern (e.g. comfort/discomfort) might actually have little to do with whatever dimensions (e.g. dropout rates) are visibly touted.
Cordially, Clyde
From: Guy Brandenburg Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:45 PM To: kc mowrey ; Clyde Greeno ; mathedcc@mathforum.org Subject: Re: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough  Statistically Feasible?
this is getting seriously off topic.
Guy Brandenburg, Washington, DC http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~gfbranden/GFB_Home_Page.html ============================
 From: kc mowrey <kcmowrey@charter.net> To: Clyde Greeno <greeno@cox.net>; mathedcc@mathforum.org Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2012 6:06 PM Subject: Re: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough  Statistically Feasible?
? Romney lost because... Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury
After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses
 because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
we have hit the tipping point where the number of people on unemployment/ foodstamps/ medicaid /disability /and welfare has reached over 50%..... it does not look good ... if you have not removed yourself from the stock market ...do so quickly also with Obama in office.... 2 things WILL happen the only question is WHEN but I expect in the next 2 years a) Iran will have a nuclear bomb b) Israel will do a preemptive strike how bad this is for all of us...remains to be seen but gas over $5 is going to be the new reality welcome to Obama the 2nd term
 Original Message  From: "Clyde Greeno" <greeno@cox.net> To: <mathedcc@mathforum.org> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:09 PM Subject: Re: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough  Statistically Feasible?
> Then, there are those who argue that many who appeared to be voting "for > Obama" actually were voting against the Tea Party. > >   > From: "John" <zgraf@yahoo.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 11:20 AM > To: <mathedcc@mathforum.org> > Subject: Romney Wasn't Conservative Enough  Statistically Feasible? > >> Not really sure if this is the correct forum for this, but here goes: >> >> After the presidential election, a number of pundits are saying that gov. >> Romney lost because >> he wasn't conservative enough <<. >> >> Thinking about this mathematically, I've drawn a simple number line of >> political affiliation below. >> The spectrum extends from 100% liberal (1) on the left to 100% >> conservative (+1) on the right. >> >> >> In order to appeal to the MAXIMUM number of voters, isn't it clear that a >> candidate should position >> himself/herself EXACTLY IN THE CENTER (i.e., at the "0" point along the >> number line)? >> >> How can one's moving further to the right (away from "0" and closer to >> "+1") possibly have the effect >> of attracting more voters? >> >> >> 1........................0........................+1 >>  >> 100% Liberal Moderate 100% Conservative >> **************************************************************************** >> * To post to the list: email mathedcc@mathforum.org * >> * To unsubscribe, email the message "unsubscribe mathedcc" to >> majordomo@mathforum.org * >> * Archives at http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=184 * >> **************************************************************************** > **************************************************************************** > * To post to the list: email mathedcc@mathforum.org * > * To unsubscribe, email the message "unsubscribe mathedcc" to majordomo@mathforum.org * > * Archives at http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=184 * > ****************************************************************************



