0
   

Clinton Spin versus Mathematics.

 
 
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 09:36 am
Clinton Spin.

By what percentage did Clinton win the Pennsylvania primary. She said she needed to win by "more than 10%" to be viable. Now she claims she won by more than 10%.

Real Math.

According to
The State of Pennsylvania there were 2,267,368 people who voted in the Pennsylvania primary. Of these Hillary got 1,237,696 and Obama got 1,029,672.

The difference (that is Hillary's total minus Obama's total) of these is 208,024 voters.

So to find the real percentage you divide the difference (208,024) by the total voters (2,267,369) and multiply by 100. This gives a percentage of 9.175 (which we will round to 9.2%).

So the margin of victory is clearly much closer to 9% then 10%... and it is certainly less then double digits.

The Mathematical error

The trick they are playing is taking advantage of a rounding error. Hillary got 54.6% of the vote (which they are conveniently rounding to 55% and Obama got 45.4% which they are conveniently rounding down to 45%.

So what's the error-- you may ask. Isn't rounding OK?

No. In this case it is not OK. They are taking advantage of an error of significant figures that any high school math teacher would mark off points for.

The direct (i.e. easiest) way to calculate the margin of victory is the one I outline above.

The Clinton math people want to do this in three steps (since after all it favors them) first calculating the individual percentages, then rounding off, then subtracting.

It is the rounding off in the middle that is incorrect (since as you can see it changes the final answer). High school students are taught in 9th grade not to make this sort of rounding error (in fact there is a rule about how much you can round intermediate answers that is clearly broken here).

Does this matter?

I don't know... but if it didn't matter, then why not report the mathematically correct answer, rather than the spin that supports Clinton's mathematically incorrect claim.

This is another example of where the Clinton spin machine does and says whatever it can, whether true or not, whether damaging or now to make her case.

Now she even bends math.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 451 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2008 10:07 am
It's all in the second clause of the sentence that was left out. Divide the 208,024 winning votes by Obama's votes, and then again divide 208,024 by Hillary's votes. I think we see 20.2% and and 16.8% respectively.

So, one can say truthfully that Hillary won by 20.2% of Obama's votes. I don't think her statement was anything more than rounding up to the nearest "class" on a histogram. If there was a desire to falsify her winning, she could have said 20.2% of Obama's votes.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2008 10:32 am
If Hillary claimed that she won by 20.2% of Obama's votes (the key here is the word Obama's) then she would be mathematically correct. This is not what she is claiming.

Hillary is making the claim that she won by 10% of the total vote ( the key here is the word total). This is simply mathematically incorrect.

The correct value for her margin of victory is a little less then 9.2%. She is rounding 9.2 up to 10 to try to inflate the importance of her single digit victory.

Any 5th grader knows that this is bogus.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Clinton Spin versus Mathematics.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 06:13:32