jackie hayes

But there's a nonstochastic algorithm that computes the number of electoral college votes -- really nothing can arise by "chance". (W/ one caveat: Population changes from the Census until now do vary between states, but that's a quantitatively tiny stochastic element, there's no way it changes the basic conclusion.) Really, statistical tests don't say how far apart things are, unless your test assumes some fixed 'gap' under consideration. They only test for equality/nonequality.

As one dork to another... You mean just a difference in means test? The thing is, they will be different by design, so there's no need for statistics here. (Go ahead, the stats will tell you exactly the same thing, but plain old static math will give you the right answer.)

No, they are smaller, but they are not proportionate. Just doing the math will show that.

Yes, that was the whole reason for having 2 houses in the Congress. The House is proportionate, but the Senate is intentionally disproportionate. For small states, the overall effect in the electoral college can be important (eg, in 2000).

No, it's not. North Dakota: 3 Electoral votes 633837 Population 0.0000047 electoral votes/person California: 55 Electoral votes 35484453 Population 0.0000016 electoral votes/person So. Does 47=16?

Umm... I can do math. But... A vote in a small state is still more important than a vote in a large state. Explain to me why that's fair.

Right, but intuitively it seems like a "fair" system is one person, one vote -- since the President represents all the people, I think it would be right if everyone has equal weight in choosing him. The electoral college however makes the vote of someone living in a small state more influential than the vote of a person living in a large state. To me, that seems unfair.

To be fair (and I am no fan of how the war's being conducted), the study doesn't say "unnecessary", it says "excess" deaths -- as in, in "excess" of the number of deaths that would have occurred without a war. (Some civilian deaths seem unavoidable.) I don't believe they distinguish between civilians and terrorists, except that foreign terrorists would not be counted. Also, that's 100k deaths from all causes, including murder, noncombat violence, and other. You didn't claim otherwise, I just think it should be made clear that they do not say that the invading forces killed 100k civilians. Still, it's a sobering study.

The advantages of the electoral college sound like stretches. - Small states get greater representation, whether it's "fair" is debatable. - If anything, the popular vote will be far more clear-cut. - Like the "Hail to the thief" of 2000??? (Not my own opinion, I just mean the public support was not there.) I don't see this at all. - We got Coolidge, didn't we? I don't think electors are any smarter than the rest of us, just more partisan. IMO the only possible justification is your first one, that it's somehow more "fair". But I don't see how to justify that statement.

That map is awfully fun to play around w/. Okay, so if Kerry can get the upset in Texas... I really hope, I it goes the other way, but I think Bush takes Ohio and Florida. 289-249 in favor of Bush. No protests or recounts, it'll be over late Tuesday night. EDIT: One more prediction -- Kerry wins the popular vote, giving us another reason to hate the electoral college -- leads to lots of b****ing about the ec, but again nothing gets done.

Okay, so it hurts our chances at the top draft spot. I'm still glad, b/c we see a bit more of Krenzel, we know a bit more. Anyway, the drop-off between the first spot and the next few isn't that great. I think about Suggs, Leftwich, Taylor, Winslow, Fitzgerald -- we'll still be in a pretty good spot, w/o quite the contract premium. And we still won't fall much futher than that IMO.

Yes.

Johnson finally catches one. Have to say, I'm really impressed by him. An Ivy League wr who turns himself into a top-tier NFL te. That's gotta take some work.

Ken Dorsey, you are Craig Krenzel's b****.

No, this one holds. TD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nathan Vasher...goes...all...the...way!!!!!!!!

That's in only 130 abs. I would really like these question answered: Do the Sox really think that 130 abs tells you that much about a player? If not, they clearly don't trust WH against lhp -- is that b/c there's information from his minor league stats that he can't hit lhp? And if so, why did they trade for him and have so much confidence in him? I'm asking anyone who knows about this. I've never understood why they allowed Valentin to bat against lhp on a regular basis, but never even gave Willie a shot.

We can't wait till next year.

I took it as a joke...

DT is so good, he can throw it to himself and get out of bounds in 3 seconds. If only the Bears would stop holding him back... J/k, I think he really is pretty talented. It's just that his self-promotion is so funny when he really hasn't done anything yet.

Hey! David Terrell can do anything. Just ask him.

This is getting really, really funny.

That's exactly what I was thinking of -- sort of a combo of that game plus Quinn against the Redskins.

I don't understand. He hit a 52 yarder earlier in the game. Is the limit that absolute?

I'm pretty happy w/ it. It's all academic at this point, and I'm just happy that Krenzel seems capable, and that Urlacher's getting pressure (actually, that anyone's getting pressure!). The fumble was huge, but overall, I'm just glad that it's not a disaster.