A Little Note on Numbers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Can we please quit trying to make points by using the “most ever” or “biggest ever” claim, and then just referencing the nominal number?

For instance: While the deficit may be the “biggest ever” in terms of the projected nominal dollar amount, it is not the biggest ever w/r/t the proportion of GDP, which is the comparison that matters. In fact, people don’t even try to compare the adjusted dollar amounts, so that you could compare the dollar amount of the 1980 deficit versuse the 2004 deficit with the inflation of the dollar over that time controlled.

That’s stupid.

On another thread, we learn that the overall number of abortions has increased. That’s fine, for what it’s worth, but the nominal number of abortions isn’t a measurement that can be meaningfully compared without reference to the population, and more specifically with reference to the size of the population of females in the years of fertility.

In other words, it’s next to meaningless to say “the number of abortions increased.” That doesn’t tell you anything important.

Finally, with respect to the election, while I like George Bush, and voted for him, it doesn’t matter that much that he got the highest number of votes ever. The population is increasing, and the turnout increased. It should come as no surprise that George W. Bush got more votes than George Washington, even though Washington was running unopposed and got every vote cast. It would not follow that Bush was more popular than Washington was, or had more of a “mandate,” whatever that means.

While he did get a victory of over 3% in the popular vote, which is a substantial victory on a historical scale, the mere fact of “most votes ever” doesn’t mean much in and of itself. It’s frankly more impressive that the Republicans increased majorities in both houses of Congress while Bush won re-election, which hasn’t happened since Roosevelt.

Sorry, but this has been annoying me. End rant.

2

BB:

I think the hoopla surrounds the fact that he got 3 1/2 million more votes than his opponent. And of course the major victories in the House and Senate. The democratic minority leader going down to defeat, first time that has happened in 50 years.

Putting the entire package together you have quite a victory for the republicans. However, I agree not a mandate for President Bush specifically.

I think a Presidential mandate is more in line with getting closer to 55% of the vote, as was done in 1952 & 56 by Eisenhower. Lyndon Johnson 61.1% in 1964. Nixon in 1972 with 60.7%. And finally, Ronald Reagan in 84 with 58.8%. True Presidential mandates are rare. As the above points out it has only occurred to four US Presidents since 1952.

However a 3 1/2 million vote edge is nothing to sneeze at.

3

[quote]ZEB wrote:
BB:

I think the hoopla surrounds the fact that he got 3 1/2 million more votes than his opponent. And of course the major victories in the House and Senate. The democratic minority leader going down to defeat, first time that has happened in 50 years.

Putting the entire package together you have quite a victory for the republicans. However, I agree not a mandate for President Bush specifically.

I think a Presidential mandate is more in line with getting closer to 55% of the vote, as was done in 1952 & 56 by Eisenhower. Lyndon Johnson 61.1% in 1964. Nixon in 1972 with 60.7%. And finally, Ronald Reagan in 84 with 58.8%. True Presidential mandates are rare. As the above points out it has only occurred to four US Presidents since 1952.

However a 3 1/2 million vote edge is nothing to sneeze at.[/quote]

Zeb:

Completely agree with you. I just want people to stop saying “most votes ever” as if it has a lot of significance.

4

Agreed!

5

BB,

This is an area I think we can definately agree on. A little bit more rigor in understanding what numbers actually might mean something would do a world of good.

However, I do believe it is political spundits on both sides that like to tout raw numbers. When are these dorks going to start putting a bit of effort into presenting things to the public?

On a similar note, I’d love it if the media, all media, could simply report on facts. This means avoiding regurgitating spundits comments on both sides. It would also mean not simply restating official government pronouncements.

However, in order to do that, those working in the media would have to actually analyze issues and put the work into developing a story instead of simply parroting what someone else has said. The media we have now is working hard to make itself useless.

6

You’re scary, BB. I was thinking about this very thing. I admit that in the midst of the post-election fervor, I was probably guilty of this ‘most votes ever’ fallacy. But to harp on this, as say Hannity does, Just sounds rather dumb to me.

Case in point wrt the deficit. I bought a new SUV. The most expensive vehicle I’ve ever purchased. But is it? As a percentage of my income, it is actually cheaper than the Geo Prism I bought in 1994.