Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Darondo t1_ix9ami0 wrote

Reply to comment by and_dont_blink in Democrat Chris Poulos Won His Connecticut House Race by a Single Vote by poliscijunki

It really isn’t at all.

Winning by exactly one vote isn’t any less likely than winning by exactly 158 votes. But no one bats an eye at that just because it’s less close, despite it having the same statistical likelihood.

There are republicans that won by tight margins too. Not everything is a conspiracy you weirdo.

1

and_dont_blink t1_ix9b2za wrote

>Winning by exactly one vote isn’t less likely than winning by exactly 100 votes.

Yes, it is. It's math and basic statistics.

>Not everything is a conspiracy you weirdo.

Nobody said it was a conspiracy, why are you calling names about something that was never said Darondo?

1

Darondo t1_ix9c8il wrote

Basic stats? Show me then.

0

and_dont_blink t1_ix9f24r wrote

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/here-are-the-chances-your-vote-matters.html

As you'll see, the larger the number the less likely it becomes. That's whether your vote matters, but for the purposes of this it can be whether any particular vote will break the tie. It's why in the list I gave before, single-vote wins are exceptionally rare and when they do occur it's generally in smaller votes.

Can you show me yours?

2

Darondo t1_ix9iqn0 wrote

This link doesn’t show any math at all.

In a random election, a dead heat is statistically the most probably outcome. Yes it’s highly unlikely with a large number of voters, but not more so than any other exact outcome.

It’s just coin flip probability. Here is the math.

2

and_dont_blink t1_ix9jx89 wrote

You,'re right, I misread what you originally wrote, sorry about that.

So why bring up winning by one vote vs an arbitrary number you have picked beforehand if they are both astronomically rare? What is the point?

2

Darondo t1_ix9mhpd wrote

Right, I think there is no point. An outcome is what it is. A virtually tied election isn’t statistically less likely (or statistically weirder) than any other exact arbitrary outcome.

I (mis)interpreted your original comment as a suggestion of potential election fuckery. Apologies if that’s not what you were getting at.

1

and_dont_blink t1_ix9ndgn wrote

>A virtually tied election isn’t statistically less likely (or statistically weirder) than any other exact arbitrary outcome.

Well we just know that's not true, it's powerball level odds to pick a random number and hit it. Winning the lottery is weird. Winning it twice is spooky. Winning it twice at the same gas station is weird asf.

>I (mis)interpreted your original comment as a suggestion of potential election fuckery. Apologies if that’s not what you were getting at.

Nah, tho even if I did think that I wish people would chill in the name calling and acting like that it isn't going to change minds yah know?

Someone rigging elections and making it by one vote would be idiotic lol just like if they both won by 153. But it's weird asf

1