= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 4 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (325)
Strange occurrence in US South Carolina Democratic primary.
The Washington Post profiled Alvin Greene last week
10 minute video interview with Greene
What happened here?
Wikipedia has a list of possible explanations.
Fivethirtyeight lists possible explanations and analysis.
Rawl and co presented five hours of testimony that the results could only be attributed to a problem with the voting machines.
What is your probability estimate for Alvin Greene's win in this election being legitimate (Greene getting lucky as a result of aggregate voter intent+indifference+confusion, as opposed to voting machine malfunction or some sort of active conspiracy)? What evidence do you need in order to update your estimate?
Probability that this person would have a worse influence on the senate than a more standard politician: 5%.
I would give it lower than that, US Senators have surprisingly little power.
That is not important when considering the probability that Alvin Greene would have a worse influence on the Senate than the average politician if he got elected. It is only important when considering the probability that he would have a much worse influence on the Senate than average.
???
I mean, in the sense that the US government is like a massive Ouija board that is not really controlled by anyone, then sure. But the senators seem to have a particularly heavy hand on the board.
Sorry, I meant "influence", not "power".
Conditional on their winning the election, presumably.
I'm not sure that is technically necessary given the precise phrasing.
Because, unless he is a politician, the sentence fails to make sense, because 'more standard politician' requires him to be one? If so, I think being selected as a candidate makes you a politician.
It seems to make sense without any fancy interpretation.