Reply #42: elections are mutlidisciplinary and the facts that make this winning% principle mostly wrong

[Land Shark]

come from OUTSIDE MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS. Namely, it comes from the reality that tabulator fraud, for example, a function of knowing elections systems and fraud methods that are outside the domain of the expertise of mathematicians, makes winning percentages infinitely variable. In Kentucky, they cheated to make not only a victory in a previously VERY close race between the same two candidates, but to win by more than 2 to 1. The court would not even ALLOW a contest to be filed because of a 'winning percentage' statute that barred any such contest if the win is by 2 to 1 or more. (that wasn't an audit statute but shows the danger of basing things on winning percentage).

If you were here visiting me now, or at any time, you'd not be able to take a picture of me showing "outrage." I'm just saying that SOME people, I can't be sure who, do not enjoy risking that sort of feeling being a part of their experience because they don't enjoy it's stressfulness and so will argue themselves out of being outraged even on a subjective, interior level. This is one big reason why revulsion against some things doesn't sweep the nation like many activists think it ought to, and activists are not immune to the same defense mechanisms.

Unless I am quoting something, just like everything anybody else says, whatever i write is indeed by definition my own opinion or thought, unless i've inadvertantly plagiarized or something. Therefore, your request for me to appear to weaken my own arguments by peppering them with "i thinks" or "in my opinions" in order to expressly state that they are merely my own personal opinions is hereby DENIED. But have a good day anyway. : )