a13, maybe I'm mistaken, but the original argument (from a statistics point of view) had two subjects. The population, of whom roughly half didn't vote, and the protestors, about whom we are trying to draw conclusions based on statistics regarding the first subject. The protestors are an implied subject, in the sense that a blind conclusion would be "half of all protestors voted."
And, technically, we are talking about combined statistical properties. i.e., 50% x 50% = 25%. For this to be valid, all populations involved must be of statistically relevant size. Half voted x Half protest = 25% are non-voting protestors (ignoring obvious relationships between voting and protesting). In Flav's case, Half Pepsi x Half John's = 25% is Pepsi and John's. That's doesn't identify what "John's" is though. It could be a brand name. Flav was attempting to point out that, because John was a person, and could easily choose soft drinks different from what statistics would suggest, that this is somehow relevant to millions of voters. My, what a leap. Individuals may make such choices, but statistically that influence will average out, or at the least just skew the final histogram. Shouldn't that be obvious?
I thought I'd go through this drivel to stop you short of another chest-thumping ego-swelling dissertation on how intelligent you are and how ignorant we all are. If you were in my class, you would have failed.
Now, that being said, it doesn't matter if it's 50%, 40%, 60%, or whatever. Gato has already clarified what his point was, and the numbers are practically irrelevant to that point.
