Apathy and its consequences...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
unclehobart
New Member
I drink Red Rock cola. Its made with real sugar. I constitute a .00002 group.
unclehobart
New Member
real men drink:
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Jesus Christ, are people still arguing over simple statistics?
Half the people in the US didn't vote. Period. Using blind statistics, the odds are that roughly half the people in any anti-war demonstration did not vote either.
It stands to reason though that anyone in an anti-war demonstration is more politically active than the average citizen, so it's likely that a larger percentage of them than the national average voted. It is at least possible.
Does it matter whether that is 55%, 60%, or 70%?
NO!
Gato_Solo's point was that there were plenty of them that didn't vote. And they should have. Geez, some people like to derail any argument made from someone who's viewpoint they don't agree with, regardless of what the actual content of the argument was.
Half the people in the US didn't vote. Period. Using blind statistics, the odds are that roughly half the people in any anti-war demonstration did not vote either.
It stands to reason though that anyone in an anti-war demonstration is more politically active than the average citizen, so it's likely that a larger percentage of them than the national average voted. It is at least possible.
Does it matter whether that is 55%, 60%, or 70%?
NO!
Gato_Solo's point was that there were plenty of them that didn't vote. And they should have. Geez, some people like to derail any argument made from someone who's viewpoint they don't agree with, regardless of what the actual content of the argument was.
I like chicken, watermelon and pepsi.
unclehobart
New Member
[homer]Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.[/homer]
chcr
Too cute for words
Not that it really has a bearing on the current discussion, but Mr. Bush was in fact elected president while receiving less than 50% of the votes cast. I've always felt that this shouled be impossible, but there it is. I always vote. Unfortunately, most often I either end up saying "I didn't vote for that moron," or "I can't believe I voted for that jerk." Why do you suppose it is so difficult in America to present the voting public with a palatable candidate. The last time I was actually proud of my presidential vote was when I voted for John Anderson and most would say that was a wasted vote. I'll stop rambling incoherently now, okay?
So the point you are all making is that people who didn't vote dont have a right to an opinion? Or are you just saying that they dont have a right to express it publicly?
You're lucky that you have your rights enshrined in a constitution because it looks like there are plenty here who would like to arbitrarily abolish them.
Funny thing that, every time I look at peoples opinions on the impending Iraq war I see that those most strongly favouring war are also those who would like to abolish freedom of speech, though only for "liberals" and others with whom they disagree of course.
Glad you made that point OLI, it supports exactly what Flavio was saying. Namely that any conjecture that "the proportion of non-voters amongst the anti-war protesters is the same as that of the overall electorate" is just that, a conjecture. This conjecture is normally what would be referred to as the "null hypothesis" in any statistical study and data would need to be gathered in order to either verify or refute this claim.
Indeed the valid point you make is that an alternative hypothesis exits, namely that, as a group, the protesters may be more politically involved than the average citizen and therefore may have a higher than average voting participation rate. I find it strange that you try to be-little what Flavio was trying to say by using an arguement which (to me) supports exactly what he was actually saying. And the statistical arguement that he was making is very relevant because in my opinion the original poster was trying, if anything, to infer that the protesters had a lower than average participation rate.
If he made this comment "that more people should participate in elections" without the specific conection to the protesters then I'd agree with you. But he is specifically singling them out, why? Why do only the antiwar protestors bare the responsibilty for low voter partitcipation, that makes no sense at all.
And finally another thing I find inconsistent in Gate Solo's post is that he seems to be implying that if there was less voter apathy at election time then Bush would not currently be President. Now this actually implies that GS feels that the non-Bush voters (which presumably according to GS constitutes many of the antiwar protesters) must be more apathetic voters than average, (otherwise an overall decrease in apathy in the electorate as a whole would cause the opposite outcome - in other words, if less apathy were to change the result of the election then the non-Bush voters must be the ones with the most apathy to lose if you undersatand what I'm saying.)
So I believe I am correct to say that the original post tends to imply that the protesters are more apathetic voters than average. A statement which not only is pure conjecture but for which neither firm data nor even logical argument is presented to back it up (as Flavio tried at length to pointed out). In fact as OLI points out there is a very resonable logical case that the exact opposite is true! In my humble opinion Flavio was the only person making much sense in this crazy thread.
You're lucky that you have your rights enshrined in a constitution because it looks like there are plenty here who would like to arbitrarily abolish them.
Funny thing that, every time I look at peoples opinions on the impending Iraq war I see that those most strongly favouring war are also those who would like to abolish freedom of speech, though only for "liberals" and others with whom they disagree of course.
Glad you made that point OLI, it supports exactly what Flavio was saying. Namely that any conjecture that "the proportion of non-voters amongst the anti-war protesters is the same as that of the overall electorate" is just that, a conjecture. This conjecture is normally what would be referred to as the "null hypothesis" in any statistical study and data would need to be gathered in order to either verify or refute this claim.
Indeed the valid point you make is that an alternative hypothesis exits, namely that, as a group, the protesters may be more politically involved than the average citizen and therefore may have a higher than average voting participation rate. I find it strange that you try to be-little what Flavio was trying to say by using an arguement which (to me) supports exactly what he was actually saying. And the statistical arguement that he was making is very relevant because in my opinion the original poster was trying, if anything, to infer that the protesters had a lower than average participation rate.
If he made this comment "that more people should participate in elections" without the specific conection to the protesters then I'd agree with you. But he is specifically singling them out, why? Why do only the antiwar protestors bare the responsibilty for low voter partitcipation, that makes no sense at all.
And finally another thing I find inconsistent in Gate Solo's post is that he seems to be implying that if there was less voter apathy at election time then Bush would not currently be President. Now this actually implies that GS feels that the non-Bush voters (which presumably according to GS constitutes many of the antiwar protesters) must be more apathetic voters than average, (otherwise an overall decrease in apathy in the electorate as a whole would cause the opposite outcome - in other words, if less apathy were to change the result of the election then the non-Bush voters must be the ones with the most apathy to lose if you undersatand what I'm saying.)
So I believe I am correct to say that the original post tends to imply that the protesters are more apathetic voters than average. A statement which not only is pure conjecture but for which neither firm data nor even logical argument is presented to back it up (as Flavio tried at length to pointed out). In fact as OLI points out there is a very resonable logical case that the exact opposite is true! In my humble opinion Flavio was the only person making much sense in this crazy thread.
unclehobart
New Member
I don't see where he said that noone had a right to protest. What I see is a general morality side condemnation of those who won't vote or shoulder the burden of keeping the Republic on the straight and narrow and yet grumble at the direction things are taking. The terms used were 'shallow, self-serving, petty, lack of conviction, and shame.' At no point is there a 'you don't have the right' in there.
Ok, so you say they do have the right to protest, only they should feel ashamed of themselves if they do.
The important point I am trying to make is that the original poster is trying to critisize the protesters as a whole for voter apathy where there is no proof that their apathy is any worse than that of the general community and in fact there is some logical case that they may indeed be less apathetic voters than average.
The important point I am trying to make is that the original poster is trying to critisize the protesters as a whole for voter apathy where there is no proof that their apathy is any worse than that of the general community and in fact there is some logical case that they may indeed be less apathetic voters than average.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
uart, you're reading a lot of stuff into a post that frankly I just don't see. The main point, as best as I can tell, was that there are bound to be large numbers of protesters who didn't vote. Why single them out? Because they are protesting!. There was no implication that they don't have the right to protest. There was no implication that they are any more apathetic than the average populace or even the pro-war populace. That is beside the point.
However, the fact remains that those who didn't vote and aren't protesting are not displaying their disagreement with an administration they didn't actively vote against. The thought process might be summarized as follows: "well, I don't like what we are doing, but I should have voted and didn't, therefore even though I have the right to protest I will back the administration in place, since I abstained and allowed the population to cast my vote for me." They are backing their decision.
That is in stark contrast to someone who didn't vote yet is vehemently criticizing the administration for its policies. Again, it doens't matter what the actual percentage of protestors who didn't vote is, so all of Flavio's frothing and ranting over conjecture and statistics is quite beside the point (as is your explanation of statistics). How you found Flavio's posts to be the only sensible ones is quite amazing to me, being that he went off on such a needless tangent.
However, the fact remains that those who didn't vote and aren't protesting are not displaying their disagreement with an administration they didn't actively vote against. The thought process might be summarized as follows: "well, I don't like what we are doing, but I should have voted and didn't, therefore even though I have the right to protest I will back the administration in place, since I abstained and allowed the population to cast my vote for me." They are backing their decision.
That is in stark contrast to someone who didn't vote yet is vehemently criticizing the administration for its policies. Again, it doens't matter what the actual percentage of protestors who didn't vote is, so all of Flavio's frothing and ranting over conjecture and statistics is quite beside the point (as is your explanation of statistics). How you found Flavio's posts to be the only sensible ones is quite amazing to me, being that he went off on such a needless tangent.
unclehobart
New Member
I'll just assume that all votes have been rigged since the inception of the Rebublic and that no ones vote has even been counted ... so no one has ever truly voted.
Now what?
*starts handing out torches and pitchforks*
Now what?
*starts handing out torches and pitchforks*