464
submitted 11 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

Days after Ohio voters passed Issue 1 and codified abortion rights into Ohio's constitution, Republicans are not accepting the election results.

In a new, unhinged press release issued by the Ohio House Republican Committee, GOP members rant that "foreign billionaires" impacted the election results and call the results tainted by so-called "foreign interference." It is unclear what they are referring to.

Ohio voters overwhelmingly voted 'Yes' on Issue 1 by a margin of 56.6% to 43.4%.

The press release further argues that the results of the election do not invalidate a 6-week abortion ban previously passed by the Ohio Legislature and that "no amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 15 points 11 months ago

56.6% - 43.4% = 13.2%. What kind of math are you doing to get 6.6%?

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

It's 6.6% away from an even split.

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 9 points 11 months ago

But is a zero-sum outcome, so the 13.2% differential is what's actually relevant.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

I'm certain you're right. It took me way too long to figure out why it was so confusing to me, actually. What would be the opposite of a zero-sum game? Is there a term for it?

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That is a great question... That I don't know the answer to. Non Zero Sum according this website. It's a edu domain, but idk it's credibility.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's not how you compare votes. It's not like the only other option for that 6.6% was to flip their vote to the opposite side. Abstaining is also a valid "vote", so to speak, and more likely for those who felt passionate enough to vote in favor of it in the first place if they weren't going to vote for it for some reason. If the number of people that make up that 6.6% abstained, i.e. just didn't vote at all, the measure would still have passed with the majority. The full 13.2% would have had to abstain from voting for the vote to have broken even. Which is why you take the difference between the vote percentages, not the difference to 50%.

[-] IanSomnia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I just saw how far above 50% it was since that's the mark you have to clear. I've always thought of elections and other votes that way. Not sure why. Never thought about it. Sure, using the more accurate 13.2% would have proven the point I was making even better, but I didn't really think that far ahead. I just wanted to give the context that controversial issues trend more toward 50/50 so passing with a 56.6 vote is nothing to turn your nose at. But to answer your question, I subtracted 50 from 56.6.

Honestly, I got defensive and wouldn't have written any of this if you hadn't said "what kind of math are you doing" like it wasn't t obvious what I did. But I guess it gave myself and others the opportunity to understand why we use the total percent and not how far above 50.

[-] Euphorazine@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Just to give some context on how numbers can be misleading, a 40 / 60 split is only 10 away from 50; however, even though that 10% margin is small, in reality it that means there are 50% more people in favor of something.

For every 40 people that don't want something, 60 people do.

For every 4 people that don't want something, 6 people do.

For every 2 people that don't want something, 3 people do.

3 divided by 2 is 1.5, or 150%.

So, in this 56.6% versus 43.4% split, 30.4% more people are in favor of this bill.

But percentages are still weird. So even my example can be misleading. It's all about how you interpret it. For instance, a 95 / 5 split would mean 19x as many people want one outcome. So the gap is 90% in the ratio, but 1800% more people are in the 95 camp. (1800% more implies 1800% over 100%, so 1900% total, or just 5 x 19)

Another way to look at the data of the 43/56 split.

If 10,000 people are against it, then 13,040 people are for it.

If 10,000 people are for it, then 6,960 people are against it.

Numbers are tricky like that

[-] ShortBoweledClown@lemmy.one 3 points 11 months ago

Honestly, I got defensive and wouldn't have written any of this if you hadn't said "what kind of math are you doing" like it wasn't t obvious what I did.

Good on you for this, seriously. I sounded like a dick, but was asking earnestly.

[-] IanSomnia@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

And like, I knew you were being earnest! Tone is hard to get across on the Internet. But emotions react before the critical thinking can do it's work =P

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
464 points (98.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7175 readers
597 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS