Oh, damn! Sorry. Missed replying to this earlier. Maybe it doesn't make sense, is the first thing to say. I just had a thought to the effect that, like Simpson's Paradox, gerrymandering is about partitioning the cohort into groups of different sizes according to the distribution of properties in those groups, in order to reverse the population trend at the level of group aggregations. So gerrymandering, I thought, is an induced form of an aggregation paradox. But that thought might be defective! I didn't think it through very carefully, and still haven't.
I'm not sure it's a perfect fit, but I like the notion. I think it's just an inverse of the usual application of the paradox. Normally the paradox is about changes to overall trends when you combine data sets, but you could just as easily break up a data set with a trend one way, say to Party A, so that each component has the opposite trend, to Party B, which is what gerrymandering is usually about.
I found that page yesterday and was going to post a link to it today. But since it does a considerably better job of explaining it than Clutch managed, I won't because it would just show him up.
But Cep, that page is a mess of misunderstanding from beginning—Simpsons Paradox is more than just "where you can divide a set of results into chunks, assess each chunk, and then combine the results of each assessment to draw a conclusion about the whole which disagrees with a direct assessment of the whole"—to end—Simpsons Paradox isn't "how the Labour party managed to 'win' the [2005] election with 55% of the power (i.e., majority control) with only 35% of the vote"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP
I found that page yesterday and was going to post a link to it today. But since it does a considerably better job of explaining it than Clutch managed, I won't because it would just show him up.
LOL No, it just makes the same mistake that Clutch did, only with more apparent deliberation and, hence, less excuse.
The essential difference between a gerrymandered victory and a Simpson's Paradox victory is that, in a gerrymandered victory some of the chunks (consituencies) must be won by the side which wins the election, whereas for an election victory to qualify as an instance of Simpson's Paradox, the winner would have to lose in all the constituencies.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Last edited by mickthinks; 11-17-2014 at 03:23 PM.
Or, to put it another way, Simpson's paradox involves a phenomenon similar to the end result of gerrymandering, but it isn't exactly the same.
The problem seems to be that in voting, the outcomes must be divided up between the parties being compared. So their vote shares are not independent - as one party does better, necessarily another party must do worse. And the number of trials (or voters) in each condition (or district) must be the same for all parties. But this is precisely what causes the confusion in the Simpson's paradox. Notice that if each condition was tried an equal number of times, the example with the kidney stones would no longer result in a misleading conclusion.
So then, notice that the Mike Tyson vs. Charlie Chaplin examples involve them fighting other people. If they were to fight each other directly, the Simpsons paradox would not be possible.
Suppose we had two arenas, and thus those were the conditions. So they don't perform identically in the two arenas. Nonetheless, it isn't possible for them to have a record such that Chaplin has a better overall record while being worse in each individual arena. Which is what happened with the example with Bruce Lee and the little girl.
Mike vs. Charlie in arena 1: A > B
Mike vs. Charlie in arena 2: X > Y
Mike overall = A+X
and Charlie overall = B+Y
But necessarily, A+X > B+Y
So Mike will always have the better overall record if his record is better in both arenas. However, his overall record could understate how much better he is if they simply had more fights in the arena that was more favorable to Chaplin.
Similarly, with gerrymandering alone, it isn't possible to deny the majority party any seats. However, if seats do not need to be the same size, it is theoretically possible to make it so that even an overwhelming majority party only gets one seat. This is then gerrymandering combined with malapportionment. But the theoretical limit of gerrymandering in districts of approximately equal size is around twice the minority party's share (meaning in practice a minority party in a two party system must be able to get well over 25% of the overall vote in order to gerrymander their way to a majority). In practice, voters are not neatly distributed and houses and apartment buildings often contain voters from multiple parties, making it impossible to make 100% packed districts. Also since voters change their mind between elections (and the voting population changes between elections due to new young voters, deaths and movements), minority party gerrymanderers will tend to want their districts to be a bit safer than 50.1% since an overall swing against their party could result in them gerrymandering their way to 0 seats.
Here's my post from a few years ago about Simpson's paradox. There's a real-world example there about the passage of the Civil Rights Act - though it does not involve gerrymandering.
Here's my post from a few years ago about Simpson's paradox. There's a real-world example there about the passage of the Civil Rights Act - though it does not involve gerrymandering.
I'm aware of that CRA bit. The Democrats voted more against the CRA overall, but if you break it down by Southern and non-Southern, the Democrats were more in favor of the CRA.
Internet Republicans love to say that they were the true party of civil rights and the Democrats were/are the real racist party.
Their argument basically hinges on not understanding the effect of Jim Crow and regional differences on the history of the parties. And combining that with condescendingly thinking that black people are unable to understand who's racist.
Staunchly racist Southern Democrats being the same party as largely anti-racist Northern Democrats while Northern Republicans were moderately anti-racist (and Southern Republicans being almost non-existent, but just as, if not more, racist than Southern Democrats) makes for a much more complicated situation. Add to that the VRA's enfranchisement of black Southern voters and many poor white Southern voters who subsequently aligned themselves with the national Democratic Party thus radically changing the composition of the Southern Democratic Party and eventually the defection of wealthy/racist Southern whites to the Republican Party and well, you don't really have a good narrative for the GOP as the party blacks "ought" to vote for anymore.
The good thing is that most people can see through this argument and will not be convinced that the Republicans are truly the party that looks out for black interests. The bad thing is that there are probably at least some people (mostly whites, but perhaps some non-whites) who would choose not to vote for Republicans if there was no plausible argument for them being the true anti-racist party, and the explanation of the historical Southern Democratic Party and the post-VRA changes is much more complicated than just pointing to Jim Crow and the overall CRA vote totals, etc.
But mostly I see it as the rationalizations of racists who want to see themselves as not racist. And even if you took away their bogus historical argument, they would simply change their focus to how the GOP is not racist now instead of pointing to how the Democratic Party used to include a large and explicitly racist faction for a large part of its history.
I don't feel like making a whole post about it and getting links and stuff, but I just wanted to preempt a non-North Carolinian posting about the bill to legalize discrimination in North Carolina.
I hope that McCrory fucker gets his ass whooped in November. Here's hoping Trump has some big coattails of failure.
I got an email from Replacements, Ltd. today. I was hoping they'd found more serving pieces from the china pattern I've had registered with them for 15 years, but it was even better than that, which is saying something because the serving dishes are hella hard to come by.
Last edited by livius drusus; 03-30-2016 at 11:20 PM.
Reason: Ltd. not Inc.
I claim to know those guys that run Replacements Ltd. because I know somebody who is friends with them, and because I like so much about them and would like to know them. They have an amazing business (and an amazing business idea!) and do a ton of good in Burlington. They employ a lot of people, including a lot of LGBT people, in a place that otherwise has limited opportunities. It creates the kind of employment opportunities for people that do not normally come about through exclusionary practices that are blessed by the state government.
At this particular moment, North Carolina does not deserve them, but I am glad that they are here.
That's awesome! Replacements, LTD is in Greensboro where I used to live, and I've been by there many times. What he's saying about the furniture market will be devastating to a region that's already struggling.
Who would have thought that one of the leading experts in porcelain china was gay?
I work for the state and got an OFFICIAL email to all the people in our rather large Department that explained how none of this was in any way discriminatory and there would be absolutely NO economic backlash, so we're probably all just over thinking this.
__________________
Much of MADNESS, and more of SIN, and HORROR the soul of the plot.
When SF's corrupt mayor bans city travel to NC, you know something's gone wrong.
If it impacts the state they can always sell Dildos or close schools.
Just ask Kansas how.
Way ahead of you! Adam & Eve is based here, and also has a pretty kick-ass backstory (started out in the 70s providing contraceptives by mail order, and after several bullshit obscenity charges, sued DOJ for abuse of power). That is another company that I am kind of proud to live in the area of.
Also we have some schools, but not so much teachers, because sometimes teachers join unions, which is literally the worst thing imaginable. So the plan is (once all the teachers have left the state because tenure has been abolished and new teachers aren't scrambling for that sweet $33k salary) to hand public education and moneys over to the churches and private schools, where everyone can discriminate however their sky god tells them, because that is what Jesus always intended anyway.
Ha! I'm not sure how I didn't know that, some friends promote Adam & Eve on blogs and at events.
I used to be equally proud of Good Vibes, which started as a small woman run store in the bay area, but they have since been bought by large-sex, although it's still amusing to give a presentation against a wall of dildos.
But for serus: This is as far as I got before I wanted to comment. This is a wonderful letter and the world should know about it. Please respond on behalf of the that we do heartily endorse their services and products and the people therein. And then the letter goes on to be more endearing and moving.
I got an email from Replacements, Ltd. today. I was hoping they'd found more serving pieces from the china pattern I've had registered with them for 15 years, but it was even better than that, which is saying something because the serving dishes are hella hard to come by.
But nothing about the dishes!
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
Free shipping for purchases of $59 and up this weekend at Replacements! That's a killer deal. I'd pay double what they usually charge just out of respeck for their genius packaging and delivery speed. Besides, you can never have too many 16" oval serving platters, amirite?
This is ridiculously alarming. I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say this is the kind of thing that leads to fascism.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith