Elections Will Third Parties Affect the Outcome of the 2024 Election?

[Scheme]

Increasing the sample takes away the basis for opposing using percentages (that the sample is too small to be meaningful).


Other than a desire to use stats to mislead, why would you look at the raw number--which merely indicates that one state has a larger baseline population and says nothing about the question you're trying to answer--rather than rates?


You used the state-to-state comparison! I pointed out that that's something that has been going around in rightist propaganda circles and that it's a dishonest use of stats, which is what drew your ire in the first place. If you'd simply said, "thanks, I actually didn't mean to mislead but was fooled myself," that would have been the end of it. And anyway, prices are obviously the key metric to look at if you want to see how people value living in different areas (you wouldn't say that more people in the world driving Hondas than Bentleys proves that Hondas are more desirable cars, right?).

As long as there is a discrepancy with the population numbers, the statistic is flawed and irrelevant. And given that Florida has half the population of California, you should see by now that the statistic is irrelevant. Think about it like this, you have two mathematical equations, y = x * 2 and y = x + 2, there is a single point where those two equations equal the same number (in our case, when the populations are equal). Any other point, the equations diverge and the resulting numbers have little statistical relevancy to each other. Sure, you can say that when x = 5 the results are closer than when x = 500, but ultimately they are still not equal and one does not reflect the reality of the other.

Because it literally means losing population. Losing population means you have less people. They lost population to Florida. The amount of people who left California was less than the number of people who entered California from Florida. I don't understand why that is so hard to conceive of. And to combat this you used a flawed statistic that means little as to whether or not your population numbers increased or decreased, as I've shown with my example.

There's a difference between the statistic of comparing two state's population numbers based on migration numbers between both of them (which was flawed as my example showed), and comparing just one state's migration as a percentage of it's own population to another state's migration as a percent of it's own population (which is not flawed and leads to a relevant statistic). Because those numbers reflect the actual reality.

At this point, I can't help but feel that you are not mathematically inclined and cannot perceive the difference between a relevant statistic and a flawed one. Unfortunately for you, you've chosen to hinge your argument on a bad statistic, versus literally any other statistic which is meaningful and lack the mathematical background to distinguish which reflects reality. And despite this mathematical ignorance, you continue to act smug and insult me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As long as there is a discrepancy with the population numbers, the statistic is flawed and irrelevant.

You haven't pointed to any flaw, and it's clearly relevant. Without looking at the rates, you're not answering the question--you're just saying that one state has a bigger baseline population. Since we both already agree on that, it has no relevance to the actual issue.

Note that I explained why the rate is what you want to know. You keep insisting that we shouldn't know the rate but you're not giving any reason why remaining ignorant about it is better.

And given that Florida has half the population of California, you should see by now that the statistic is irrelevant. Think about it like this, you have two mathematical equations, y = x * 2 and y = x + 2, there is a single point where those two equations equal the same number (in our case, when the populations are equal). Any other point, the equations diverge and the resulting numbers have little statistical relevancy to each other. Sure, you can say that when x = 5 the results are closer than when x = 500, but ultimately they are still not equal and one does not reflect the reality of the other.

Say you have two companies. One has 100,000 employees, and the other has 1,000. One thousand a year from the first company quit, and 999 from the second quit. Your view is that the second one is probably better to work for?

Because it literally means losing population. Losing population means you have less people. They lost population to Florida. The amount of people who left California was less than the number of people who entered California from Florida. I don't understand why that is so hard to conceive of. And to combat this you used a flawed statistic that means little as to whether or not your population numbers increased or decreased, as I've shown with my example.

As explained, you're repeating a dishonest talking point. If you look at the rates, it's clear that the point rightist propagandists are trying to make is false.

At this point, I can't help but feel that you are not mathematically inclined and cannot perceive the difference between a relevant statistic and a flawed one.

I think you know that this is ridiculous but feel trapped because you were caught making a poor argument and don't have the integrity to admit that you were either fooled or were deliberately trying to mislead.

 

[Scheme]

You haven't pointed to any flaw, and it's clearly relevant. Without looking at the rates, you're not answering the question--you're just saying that one state has a bigger baseline population. Since we both already agree on that, it has no relevance to the actual issue.

Note that I explained why the rate is what you want to know. You keep insisting that we shouldn't know the rate but you're not giving any reason why remaining ignorant about it is better.


Say you have two companies. One has 100,000 employees, and the other has 1,000. One thousand a year from the first company quit, and 999 from the second quit. Your view is that the second one is probably better to work for?


As explained, you're repeating a dishonest talking point. If you look at the rates, it's clear that the point rightist propagandists are trying to make is false.


I think you know that this is ridiculous but feel trapped because you were caught making a poor argument and don't have the integrity to admit that you were either fooled or were deliberately trying to mislead.

The flaw is you are looking comparing numbers that don't make sense. In my example, the small state gained a population of 9999, while the large state lost a population of 9999, despite your statistic saying that 100x more people moved from the large state than to the small state. This is supposed to highlight to you that your statistic is inherently flawed, because your statistic says that a place that actually lost population somehow gained population at 100x the rate of a state that actually gained just as many people. This should've clued you in to the fact that the statistic you are using is invalid. What you should look at is the net population difference as a rate of the old population. So for state B, you would see that -9999 / 10 million = -0.1%, while for state A it would be 9999 / 10 = 1000. These are the true rates of migration changes because they reflect what actually happened, state B actually lost -0.1% of it's population while state A actually gained 1000x it's population.

Keep being smug and saying I'm being dishonest, it's literally all you have here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The flaw is you are looking comparing numbers that don't make sense.

What do you mean? You don't understand the concept of rates?

In my example, the small state gained a population of 9999, while the large state lost a population of 9999, despite your statistic saying that 100x more people moved from the large state than to the small state. This is supposed to highlight to you that your statistic is inherently flawed, because your statistic says that a place that actually lost population somehow gained population at 100x the rate of a state that actually gained just as many people.

Well, if you want to know where people prefer to live between A and B, you would mainly look at price, right? But if you just wanted to know where people were moving, you'd want to look at the rate. Otherwise, you'd just conclude that more people want to leave the place with a bigger population. You're not isolating the factor you're supposedly interested in. And continually asserting your position without actually defending or explaining it doesn't make it more right.

This should've clued you in to the fact that the statistic you are using is invalid. What you should look at is the net population difference as a rate of the old population. So for state B, you would see that -9999 / 10 million = -0.1%, while for state A it would be 9999 / 10 = 1000. These are the true rates of migration changes because they reflect what actually happened, state B actually lost -0.1% of it's population while state A actually gained 1000x it's population.

Um, the rate in A would be higher in that case. Big mistake there, bud! But if the rates are the same, but one state has a higher population, you'll misleadingly get the idea that more people are going from the bigger one to the smaller one.

Keep being smug and saying I'm being dishonest, it's literally all you have here.

Well, no. I actually explained my position and demonstrated why you'd be more interested in looking at the rate. All you're doing is your trademark personal attacks and restatements of GOP propaganda, no?

 

[Scheme]

What do you mean? You don't understand the concept of rates?


Well, if you want to know where people prefer to live between A and B, you would mainly look at price, right? But if you just wanted to know where people were moving, you'd want to look at the rate. Otherwise, you'd just conclude that more people want to leave the place with a bigger population. You're not isolating the factor you're supposedly interested in. And continually asserting your position without actually defending or explaining it doesn't make it more right.


Um, the rate in A would be higher in that case. Big mistake there, bud! But if the rates are the same, but one state has a higher population, you'll misleadingly get the idea that more people are going from the bigger one to the smaller one.


Well, no. I actually explained my position and demonstrated why you'd be more interested in looking at the rate. All you're doing is your trademark personal attacks and restatements of GOP propaganda, no?

I intentionally left the percentage point off the rate in state A as to not have to write out more numbers, I'm sure you can convert numerical rate to percentage rate on your own though.

You are saying state B having 9999 less people and state A having 9999 more people as somehow state B gaining 100x more people. Step back from the argument at this point and please try to understand how invalid the statistic you are using is. No one in the world would say that state B gained people because it is not true. It simply doesn't exist in reality, the statistic is hugely flawed (as you've agreed to previously with a smaller 'sample' size), and doesn't explain at all what the reality of the situation is. I'm going to stop here because there is no point in arguing with someone who refuses to accept reality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I intentionally left the percentage point off the rate in state A as to not have to write out more numbers, I'm sure you can convert numerical rate to percentage rate on your own though.

You are saying state B having 9999 less people and state A having 9999 more people as somehow state B gaining 100x more people.

No. Nowhere have I said that. I have said that rates are what we'd want to look at to understate state-to-state migration trends (and prices would be the main thing we'd look at it to determine desirability).

Step back from the argument at this point and please try to understand how invalid the statistic you are using is.

I don't think you understand the words you're using. Invalid, flawed, etc. have meanings, and it's not just "I don't like that this reveals that my preferred propaganda is wrong." It's more useful to use rates for reasons I have explained, and you have made no effort to explain why we don't want to know rates.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

scheme and jack savage be throwing heavy all up in here.

 

[My Spot]

No.

 

[spamking]

If you'd let me view your profile (for some reason you felt the need to make it private),

Oh wow . . . he did didn't he.