Have you seen these statistics and what do you think about them?

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election: Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29 Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." 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. Asked by vhfaloha 50 months ago Similar questions: statistics Politics & Law > Politics.

Beware of things you read on the internet: This analysis is a hoax. Professor Olson didn't write it, and the person that Professor Olson thought wrote it says he didn't write it either. To get the story on the hoax, go to the website below: snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp But before you do, if you might be interested in my analysis of the numbers quoted, here it is: Whoever did this used a method of counting people and territory based upon the electoral college makeup.As I'm sure you know, the electoral votes for a state go to the person receiving the majority of the vote.

So by this analysis, if enough people in a state voted for Bush to swing the electoral vote, the analyst is using the entire population of that state, not just the number who actually voted for Bush, and also the entire land area of that state. Obviously, this is a skewed way to do the math. Not only that, but the analysis also takes this method down to the county level, so if the majority in a county voted for Bush, the analyst is using the entire population of the county, and its entire land area to do his (or her - this sounds like Ann Coulter reasoning) calculations.

This means that the analysis is counting some counties that are in states that went for Gore. As we all know, Gore won the popular vote by a majority.In any other democracy in the world he would have been elected president without any contest. Sources: Snopes, my observations .

I think, as usual, statistics can be made to say anything you want them to say Most "statistics" and polls have such a high degree of error as to be unreliable, at best, and bordering on outright lies at worst. Look at the cherry picked information that Bush used to manipulate the congress into voting for the incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq as a prime example of that. Most of the numbers I see above are laughable, at best.

Let's see, Bush won in Texas and Alaska, the largest state, and somehow this indicates "land ownership". That's not even a good assumption. And somehow murder rates tie into the election process somehow?

As I said, the "scientific" analysis and deduction is flawed at best and completely laughable; it's somehow supposed to perpetuate the fear concept championed by the Republican strategists.

He's made a very interesting point. Although I'm a bit confused about the statistics that you showed. Aren't there 50 states in the union?

In any case, Gore was the champion of the big cities, which tend to need and receive much more government aid than do rural parts of the country. I'm not sure if you can draw any firm conclusions from just one election, so I'm not sure that he had convinced me of much of anything. But, he did make an interesting point that bares further study.

The map below clearly shows that the only places (except for New Mexico) that supported Gore were either near the coasts or the Great Lakes. Maybe the tides had something to do with it!

Sources: personal opinion and cited above Snow_Leopard's Recommendations Fortunately for us, Gore wasn't elected, so he is able to keep cranking out his masterpieces.An Inconvenient Truth: The Crisis of Global Warming Amazon List Price: $23.00 Used from: $13.80 Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (based on 13 reviews) Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit Amazon List Price: $15.95 Used from: $1.94 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 16 reviews) .

America is headed in a state of unaccountability. It would seem to me that the problem with America today, aside from the crumbling family unit, excessive government control, and the "what's in it for me" attitude, is the unaccountability of its citizens. People are looking for more rights along with less responsibility.

Why did Al Gore do well in these certain areas of the United States? It is because they are the very areas where people do not want to accept responsibility for their actions. Instead, many would prefer to contribute as little as possible to society while still living a fairly decent life.

These are the same people who become pregnant and have abortions, because they do not want the responsibility of a child. They are the same people who get workers comp because they twisted their ankle 5 years ago. They are the few, the proud, the leeches.

The ask not what can I do for my country, but what can my country do for me? They are those who do not contribute, but take away from society. Al Gore would have catered to these people as president given the chance.

This is why this certain demographic population voted for Al Gore, it would've meant more benefits and less responsibility. On the other hand, I can not say that everyone who voted for Al Gore intended to leech off the government. Many voted for him because they are democrats and vote with their party.

This is a little complacent, but I'm fine with it. Many voted for him because of his environmental awareness. That is a very good reason to vote for a president, I believe we should be aware of what's going on with the environment.

Some may have even voted for him, because they believed that he would help America move forward. But according to these statistics, it would seem to me that many voted with the "What's in it for me" mentality.

I have a beauty for you. " "What are the statistics on credit card fraud?" "What is covariance and how does it apply to statistics? " "What are your askville statistics?

" "importance of statistics in the field of accounting" "importance of statistics.

Importance of statistics in the field of accounting.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.