Talk:2136: Election Commentary

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 21:18, 12 April 2019 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

A lot of election commentary falls under the category of Bayesian inference. The various news agencies have prior distributions for the votes from all of the precincts, and update their estimates of the final total votes based on the precincts that have reported so far. Thus, "Candidate X is leading Candidate Y in votes received, but since only the precincts that previously have favoured X-like candidates have reported in so far, and they aren't giving X as much a lead as expected, we think this means Y will win overall." 18:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Anybody else getting tired of whiny Californicators and New Yorkers trying to use their superior population to dictate to the rest of the country how to live? Seebert (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm tired of small communities trying to use "oh but added up we have a larger population than you!" to try and justify insulting California and New York. 21:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Except for they don't, because they still don't. You can add together the populations of all the other states combined and not have a majority of voters.Seebert (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
California population: 40 million. New York population: 20 million. US population: 330 million. Please check your sources next time. 21:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)