Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Guess this tells the story

I've been wondering how exactly the voting results would look on a map and here it is, insane:
THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD & BREAK YOUR HEART









Interesting Statistics



Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.. Paul , Minnesota, points out facts of 2008 Presidential election:



Number of States won by:

Democrats: 19

Republicans: 29



Square miles of land won by:

Democrats: 580,000

Republicans: 2,427,000



Population of counties won by:

Democrats: 127 million

Republicans: 143 million



Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Democrats: 13.2

Republicans: 2.1



Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country."



Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.



Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.



If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.



Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

On the subject of maps:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

The Olsen Hoax map counts all counties the same. Very misleading.

In any serious endeavor one needs to be careful about how one arrives at their judgments. Suppose you were in charge of an evacuation (say there was a possible nuclear event, such as in Japan.) and you were in charge of allowing vehicles onto a ferry to get them to safety. Two buses pull up requesting transport out of the danger zone. One has a driver, but is otherwise empty. The other has a driver and is next to full - one remaining seat. Assuming you want to save as many people as possible: which bus gets on first? I'd tell the driver of of the empty bus to leave it and take a seat on the other bus. On second thought, hell, you might even tell the people in the next twenty cars or trucks to get out and fill the empty bus for efficiency's sake. Simple utilitarian logic.

The same logic one should apply when looking at a map, or considering statistics.

Look, if you were a fighter jet pilot you'd want the most accurate, least biased, instrumentation possible. You'd have been trained to understand that, given all the forces acting on you in a jet, your *gut* not only isn't good enough to make the right decisions, it can actively misinform and confuse you.

The timing is different, the stakes are different, but why settle for comfortably biased data just because the subject is politics?