Slashdot Mirror
Perfect Coin-Toss Record Broke 6 Clinton-Sanders Deadlocks In Iowa (marketwatch.com)
schwit1 writes: While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it's easy to say who was luckier. The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
Who provided the coins?
...Just like Bernie's odds of besting the Clinton machine and their dirty tactics.
Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
Oh gee, a coin toss. And Hilary won all 6? Doesn't sound fishy at all...
Play the futures market as well as Hillary, can arrange to have a perfect 6 out of 6 in a simple coin toss contest..
Can I see that coin again?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
6 coin flips and all for one person, I am going to call B.S.!
A coin toss? Really? Iowa needs to scrap the caucus system and have a proper primary.
Unless Hillary runs the next 'Justice' department she will go to federal prison.
Don't get between her and the oval office, unless your insurance is paid up.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Seems Bill isn't the only Clinton that can get some head when in need.
First large donations, now weighted coins, what's next?
*this message is a lame attempt at humor. Any resemblance between your perception of this and your perception of reality is purely coincidental.*
Seriously - even if her opponent is Trump or Cruz or Rubio.
Why the HELL would you vote Hillary!
Tell me ONE thing she's done other than marry Bill.
OK - a good thing. Putting classified intel data on an illegal shithouse server for the Chinese and Russians to find is NOT a good thing.
If the coins and flips were fair, the odds against either candidate winning all flips is 97%.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
It is a 1 in 64 chance of it happening. The odds are not all that bad.
Hillary Clinton is the worst thing that can happen to US.
where they just throw the coin in the air and declare it flipped.
Low probability things do happen.
I'd look elsewhere for caucus fraud (and there are already reports coming out). A conspiracy to cheat the coin tosses would be huge and impossible to keep quiet.
See that "Preview" button?
I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins. Not that I have proof that that's what happened.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Well considering these were 6 different coin flips in 6 different locations with 12 different people calling heads or tails, how can you group them together. It seems odd, but is it really?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I could think of a couple of worse candidates.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
So are you are implying that:
1) Hillary rigged the coin toss in 6 physically disparate locations in which the need for the coin toss could not have been predicted before hand?
Or
2) HIllary rigged the coin toss in all precincts prior to the caucus on the off chance that she and Bernie would poll as a dead heat?
And by Hillary I don't mean her personally, but people in her campaign or associated with her campaign that wanted to see her win. Hell it could even had been Trump supporters for all the sense that rigging a coin toss makes.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
6 coin tosses correspond to P = 0.5^6 = 0.015625. That is less an 1.6% chance of getting all 6 correct.
So 6 coins tossed in 6 different locations, handled by 6 different sets of people were all somehow rigged by the Clinton campaign? She really can run an organized campaign.
I'm not a Hillery supporter but I can't believe the integrity of that many Iowans could be that compromised at random locations.
Please take a breath note and then. The air will do you good.
The whole process of the Iowa caucus screams of corruption.
I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier. They tried to close the doors and were barely stopped from flat stealing the election.
It's easy to cheat on a coin toss, if the people aren't really who they say they are.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Add a little Bayes to your analysis - what is a reasonable a priori estimate that Clinton would bother to cheat at these coins? Even if it were 1%, the 3% chance of it happening under fair conditions would mean that the probability of cheating given the outcome would be only 25%.
In other news the usa is increasingly looking like one of the many banana republics it created. The same methods used for the outer reaches of empire are starting to poison their inventor.
... decided by money and coin tosses.
Your "democracy" is the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
Control over the money supply.
She picked the silver side.....
love is just extroverted narcissism
If the coins and flips were fair, the odds against either candidate winning all flips is 97%.
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
Isn't it 98.5%?
Why on Earth would anyone ever actually vote for Hillary Clinton? She is a horrid shitstain of a human being who belongs in prison. She is power-mad and worse, part of a dynasty. We don't need that shit in America. So, who are you people who support her? More importantly, WHY do you support her? How can you possibly reward her lawbreaking with an election to the highest office in the land? The arguments I've seen so far are that she's a woman so women should vote for her, and voting Hillary is a kind of protest vote against Trump. Look, there's already Sanders for people who want to throw their votes away, you don't need two protest candidates. I am really geniunely curious how so many of you out there can support her.
Oh, and for anyone who doesn't think it was a big deal: what if Senator Ted Cruz kept his own private email server that was promptly rooted by several foreign countries, and routed classified emails through there? Kind of puts the right perspective on Hillary's crimes, don't you think?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The odds for Hillary were always 100% - Bernie doesn't believe in money.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Some of those tosses are recorded on film, too, if you go through the original article and links. Not all, though.
Here is the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONP9oKpyjQ4
More likely Hillary Shills conducted the coin toss in an underhanded manner and Sander's proxies didn't have the balls to call them on it.
You know, it depends on how you flip it, which apparently you can do without having any ill intent.
Years ago in playing some games with co-workers, a coin toss was part of something. I would occasionally get about 8-10 in a row.
People used to kind of freak out, because I'd flip the same thing a bunch of times and they said it was statistically impossible. I said I just flipped the coin and they could see me do it.
Much later I saw things which suggested if you know how to flip it, you can control the outcome ... which means you can possibly do it by accident.
Is it still a fair coin toss if I have no idea how it happened? I sure wasn't cheating, and I couldn't do it on command, it just happened sometimes.
Really, statistically unlikely means just that -- given enough samples the chances pretty much become 100%.
Oooh, 3 of 100 times you could get that outcome, quick, call the witch doctor.
Statistically unlikely stuff happens all the freakin' time.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Pretty sure insurance doesn't pay off in case of "suicide".
ohhhh, too soon?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It would be easy enough to run it several times and show the clip where she wins
love is just extroverted narcissism
And why was it Hillary's head on the coin?
If there was cheating, I doubt they'd have been so dumb as to rig it that obviously. Which leads to option 3: The people doing the coin tosses were in favor of Hillary and reported a pro-Hillary flip independent of any direction from the Hillary campaign
Not that I trust a Clinton. I'm not a Democrat and I don't like more of the party platform but anything that happens that favors Clinton is going to get the stink eye from the Republicans and the Sander Chicken Army.
That's the only reason that this is even on Slashdot. Nothing about this event is truly amazing. Low odd events happen daily and no one blinks an eye around here. This is just more political banter that's going to make Slashdot combative and dull again until after the next election and after that we'll still have to endure a bunch of crybabies no matter who's the winner.
Don't forget the possibility that many supposed Bernie representatives in any position of power are really Hillary plants - I'd wager more than half of the coin tosses were ever actually done, both reps just agreeing Clinton won.
Hillary really wants to win and she will stop at nothing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's interesting but meaningless.
Sanders proxies were undercover Hillary supporters. They have both placed agents in each others campaigns and things are much worse then we imagine.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sanders jumps right to mind.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Biased coin and the hand that tosses.
Never go in on a coin toss against a Clinton when an election is on the line!
Then both Bernie and Hillary could both claim to have won . . . and lost . . . at the same time. Now looking over at the Republican corner . . . I think that the folks who have lost, are the American citizens.
Wouldn't it be cool, if some guy managed to crawl out of the Washington political poop, and declare himself as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", and get people emotionally enthused about this election? The way I see it now, folks are just looking for the "least worse candidate".
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Yes, unfortunately, that does mean there's a 3% change of it happening.
And after playing DnD for over 30 years, I can remember times when I needed to roll 3% or less on a d100 and did it successfully. 3% happens a lot, it happens exactly 3 out of every 100 times, so saying it's unlikely does not make it impossible.
Low probability things tend to happen particularly often in elections
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yeah, because the popular vote is exactly how the President of the United States is selected.
Nope, never been that way in over 225 years. Get over it already.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
There is only a 1.5625% chance that she could hit all 6 just from luck alone.
Seems obviously highly suspicious to me.
Enough said.
The supreme court selected Republican Establishment George Bush instead of the people's popular vote?
No. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida government officials empowered before the election to make decisions regarding counts and recounts and submission deadlines would have their decisions stand.
Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.
Plus there is that other pesky detail that the "popular vote" was never the agreed upon criteria for selecting a President. It was always the electoral college and both sides designed their campaigns with that in mind, not the popular vote. If the popular vote was the goal then both sides would have run very different campaigns.
It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount. The election was "stolen" from Gore not by the Florida Governor nor the Florida Secretary of State nor the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court. It was "stolen" by the Democratic Party officials who designed and deployed the butterfly ballot that confused Democratic voters into accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Gore lost due to his party's error. Painful but true. To say otherwise is denial.
Or option 4. All coin tosses were on the up and up and Hillary's campaign just got lucky. It's not even in the realm of highly improbable.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Would it be easy to get the Sanders's campaign to not call foul loudly and on every News station if that were the case?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Low probability things do happen.
In coin flips and Options trading when it benefits Hillary, they SURE do. I always wondered why she didn't hit the Power Ball Lottery myself...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Oooh, 3 of 100 times you could get that outcome, quick, call the witch doctor.
Closer to one in a hundred.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
If the coins and flips were fair, the odds against either candidate winning all flips is 97%.
98.5%.
Out of the past 48 super bowl coin tosses, there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads, two streaks of 4 tails, two streaks of 3 heads, and two streaks of 3 tails.
Overall, you have the greatest probability of winning if you call whatever came up last time, somehow.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Fixing "coin tosses" is just one of many ways that Hillary supporters gamed the system for her "victory" - it's just the most visible.
Every hear the phrase "where there's smoke there's fire"? Well here's the smoke, and that's why it matters because it points to a lot more going on you can't see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've done this and can vouch for it.
When I would wait (upwards of an hour) the for bus after work, I'd sit on the concrete and flip a quarter to see if I could get down an art of forcing the outcome. I once managed to tally up 25 heads in a row.
Given that this is a proven unfortunate fact of coin flipping, I'd say that there's probably no way to make a coin toss fair without enforcing a lot of distance between the tosser and the landing surface, and enforcing a lot of spin during the coin's flight.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
First Microsoft, a major Rubio donor volunteers to count votes for "free", then Rubio gains a near 10% surge in popularity. And now Hillary wins 6 out of 6 coin flips....
These elections are gonna be fun to watch...
They certainly do. Every spin of a roulette wheel ends in an event with 1/38 probability (1/37 in Europe).
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
This whole discussion seems to be based on a false report. See the update at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-coin-flips-iowa-caucus/459429/. The original story from the Des Moines Register appears to be a collection of anecdotal reports with perhaps a measure of confirmation bias thrown in: once reporters were looking for cases of Hillary coin toss wins they found them. Even by late last night there was at least one official saying Bernie won the toss in her precinct, making the story at best 6 of 7, not 6 of 6. Today a party spokesman said Bernie actually won more tosses than Hillary. Since these were precinct delegates at stake, who in turn elect delegates to some kind of intermediate district caucuses, who in their turn elect the state-wide delegates who elect the Iowa delegates to the national convention, these coin flips are each of minuscule importance, which is probably why everyone is cool with using them.
I wonder where this video of Sanders winning a coin toss came from then.
I stole this Sig
If they flipped the coin 3+ times in order to get the desired result, I think all those people in the caucus location would take notice, and someone would ask what in the fuckity fuck they're doing.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Different Coins. Different ppl calling them. In fact, some of the calls were by Bernie's ppl.
So, like all of the GOP's typical BS, here is another one.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So I guess that money really did decide this election! /rimshot
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
A crook and a commie..
Nope. Any current GOP candidate is far far worse. Even the economists are saying that the GOP's plans are nothing but lip service and a joke.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Anyone want to do the maths on how likely 6 tied precincts are? There are hugely fewer ways to tie than not, and it happened six times? How many voters in a precinct?
The odds are exactly the same as they were before she did so.
They are odds. They are not impossibilities, they are improbabilities and regardless of how improbably something is, its still possible otherwise you wouldn't be discussing probabilities.
The chances of this happen are not 'improbably' at all even. For every 100 tries, 3 will happen this way, given the probability statistics we have (yours here). If you know that you're going to repeat this task 1000 times, then you will probably have 30 occurrences of the event happening. The probability of this is 97% ... funny how it just reversed isn't it?
The problem when you try to talk about how improbably something is, is that you talk about it in a vacuum. You don't live in a vacuum, you live in an infinite expanding universe.
So you see, this is going to occur. Its going to occur a lot. Sometimes it may even occur to someone that seems to be some sort of [un]holy alignment for that sort of luck.
Worse still, the universe is freaking deterministic, so luck and probability aren't involved! That coin flip and the outcome of the election has been decided since the dawn of time when existence began! Wrap your head around that one and talking about probability will sound silly.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I know I don't want Sanders or Trump; I'm uncertain of Hillary. Bill *was* in the driver's seat, even with Hillary's influence strongly over him; what would we get with Madam President Clinton? It's not going to be another 8 years of Bill, which would be suboptimal, but relatively benign.
I favor Gary Johnson because his policies are relatively inoffensive (we have disagreements) and he's fiscally conservative. This is the least-harmful option I see on the table. Even I would make a non-ideal candidate: I have great economic plans with risk controls and contingencies to fix a lot of our basic problems, but I'm short on a *lot* of other stuff, and have no idea how to implement some of the things I *do* generally understand (education and workforce development--two separate things we currently treat as a unit--both come to mind: I know what to do, but not how to do it without wrecking shit). There are some things I don't even know how to address. We're putting a lot of expectations on our candidates, and can settle for "not too bad" at best.
Even doing *nothing* is non-ideal, and that's accounting for the President's entire body of power being his influence. As a Representative or Senator, you have the influence of one voice in hundreds; as the President, you have the influence of one *BOOMING* voice in hundreds. The media listens to you; the Senators listen to you; the entire god damned world listens to you. When the President speaks in front of your assembly, you had better prepare a response. If you can't convince your constituents the President is wrong, you're going to have a bad time holding favor; your constituents largely do not care about what the other Congressmen are blathering about.
The President makes things move. He doesn't have legislative power, but he has a hell of a lot of impact on the legislative process.
If I'm ever President, I'm allocating like ten million U.S. tax dollars per year to direct-hire some intelligent cabinet members. Somehow I'll make Congress give me an army a fifth the size of Congress to check my math. There is no way I could handle that job myself; I suspect this is true of every human being on the planet, and I know some folks who spectacularly outclass me in terms of raw intellect. House Representative is more interesting: I'd need a 40-year term to work out all the problems, and Reps get it as long as they don't fuck off too much. America doesn't need a 10-term emperor.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
any succession of coin tosses is arguably equally likely.
but hey, let's go your direction and do it one more:
the odds of a coin landing on a specific side are 1:2.
but then somebody has to have called the correct side to win. so, let's "compound" those events. the caller has two choices to choose from, so the odds of them calling the correct side are also 1:2.
wow, now winning a coin-toss is 1:4.
oh, hey, what are the odds that the person chosen to be the caller wins? well you have two sides vying for a win, and so two people to choose from. once again, the odds of the person being called also winning the coin toss are 1:2.
wow, winning a coin toss just got to 1:8.
ad infinitum.
also doesn't change the fact that if you practice it for long enough, if you're in control of both the toss and the catch, you can force the outcome. if you manage to master this art, consider the fact that the call is usually made while the coin is in air, giving the master of hand eye coordination, reflexes, or whatever ample time to adjust the height of the catch.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
1). At a rate of ~1.5% (or 1 in 64) this is really not that absurd.
2). Th suggestion or implication that this would have "changed the outcome" in any non-negligible way is false. The coin tosses were for awarding county delegates not state delegates. Even if all coin tosses were reversed the state delegate award would not have changed at all.
No surprise. No matter what side of the aisle you represent, you have to admit Hillary is one lucky son(daughter?)-of-a-bitch.
I think you misspelled trump there
Really? Show me the tosses that were conducted on film that actually show the coin before hand, the results of the toss, and the coin flipping through the air.
Well considering these were 6 different coin flips in 6 different locations with 12 different people calling heads or tails, how can you group them together. It seems odd, but is it really?
Was it? Why would two people need to call heads or tails for each toss? You seem to be assuming much and modded up for keeping the faith.
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 Januaray editions of the Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
6 different coin flips ... 12 different people calling heads or tails
That could get confusing. Maybe just have one person call per flip.
how can you group them together
You can group them together just as well as you can group any other six independent events, such as six fair coin tosses done by the same person, with the same person calling heads or tails.
It seems odd, but is it really?
Yes, yes it is. But not so much that it's worth investigating for fraud.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 January edition of The Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
The odds of this happening by pure chance is p = 1 / 64 = 0.015625. This p-value is so small, that pure chance cannot explain a Clinton victory. Therefore, Clinton didn't win by pure chance. Since this is a caucus, if it's not pure chance, it must be the will of the people.
We now have statistical proof, with 4-sigma statistical significance, that Clinton is the choice of the people!
Heil Clinton!
The odds against EITHER candidate winning all is 2^5 (the probability that throws 2-6 match throw #1).
The odds against CLINTON winning all six are 2^6.
it was stupid to operate one's emails like that, but it wasn't criminal. This is [yet another] partisan witch hunt.
Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate in the race. She's smart, she's a hard-worker, her policies align with mine. That's why I'm voting for her.
Donald Trump is an insane, impulsive narcissist. Ted Cruz is a fanatic intent on shutting down the government. Bernie Sanders is well-meaning but naive, more importantly he is the best chance for a Trump or Cruz to become president.
Clearly this doesn't count because of the presence of mustache wax.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Just ditch democracy all together, pick the President via a lottery from all 18 or older citizens...given the usefulness of the position in the world anyway this can't possibly hurt.
I think Sander's characterization of this as a tie is pretty appropriate.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
because he is batshit fucking insane. This isn't a game, you dumb fuck, this guy will have access to nuclear weapons.
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 January edition of The Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
True that. I have twice rolled three twenties in a row on a twenty-sider. In 35 years of game play. 20^3=8000, so I don't have a hard time believing a 1 in 64 chance.
(The first time, I was a guest player. The regular players demanded to inspect my dice, and when they found out they were normal dice, they were stunned.)
(The second time was with my regular group. They made me wash my smelly feet, and when I returned to the table, I rolled three twenties in a row. The stuff of legend... )
I can see the fnords!
There have been a lot of people who believe that the machinery of the Democratic Party (party officials and such) want Clinton to win, are in cahoots with the Clinton campaign, and have been trying to rig the new coverage, debates, and elections. That may be a crazy conspiracy theory, but it is what some people seem to think is going on.
If you believe that, it doesn't need to be Clinton or her staffers rigging things. The people running the elections are already trying to get her elected.
Agreed. Also, it's be unlikely to provide a payoff worth the risk, notwithstanding last night's results.
I can see the fnords!
when we have such a close tie in such an important situation, whatever happened to using high technology, supposedly one of the hallmarks of our advanced civilization?
why are we tossing a coin when a whole slew of models of handheld calculators come with a rand() function?
it's pretty simple. somebody is picked to be the caller and they call high or low.
then you get a group of people (does 10 work?) to write a single digit from 0-9 on a piece of paper and stuff it in a box (UNfolded). somebody shakes the box and then the 10 people get in line to reach in and take a piece of paper out of the box without looking at it. as each piece of paper is drawn, a string of numbers is built up. you seed the randomizer with that string of digits, throw out x number of results and produce the next result.
if it's higher than 0.49, then the result is "high", otherwise it's "low".
not that damn hard to figure out. but these are the people who get into politics rather than something that takes intelligence.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
All this really proves is that everything you read on the internet is a lie. I.e. Hilary didn't actually win every coin toss.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl
Low probability things do happen.
Yes, but how often?
Any she has good policy positions and she'll nominate good judges.
That's why I'm voting for her. Why is it so hard to believe that people genuinely want to vote for the most qualified candidate on the ballot?
My original post was for EITHER candidate winning all.
The odds against EITHER candidate winning all is 2^5 (the probability that throws 2-6 match throw #1).
The odds against CLINTON winning all six are 2^6.
She did...and made $100k on $10k investment in a day.
Funny how only the governor's wife gets invited into such investment opportunities.
Her fortune and her career and her fame are all from riding Bill's coattails. And she's the choice of modern feminists? I guess modern feminist leaders really are just democratic party stooges.
The coin toss is just a typical media misdirection, the real story is in the voting machine fraud and the vote count fraud.
Those who understand how the world really works knows The Rothschilds has already picked Clinton (see cover of the 2016 January edition of The Economist).
Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus
Voter Fraud and 'Missing' Precincts: How Clinton Stole Iowa
Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus
Imagine how many other precincts used similar tactics. The fact that even C-SPAN calls it outright voter fraud should leave Americans with no illusions: The Democratic nominee has already been chosen.
But wait, it gets worse:
Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing.
â" John Wagner (@WPJohnWagner)
February 2, 2016
That's right: Caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. Clinton is certainly talented at misplacing/deleting things that she doesn't want people to read.
Hillary Clinton receives $200,000/hour to speak to Goldman Sachs behind closed doors (and no transcripts of what she says are allowed, of course). Do you really think this election hasn't already been bought and paid for?
"Democracy" is fun.
The odds of winning the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 292,201,338. The odds of 6 coin flips coming up as chosen is 1 in 64. There are seven orders of magnitude between the odds.
I have absolutely no trouble imagining the Clinton campaign giving its people loaded coins.
For the Clinton campaign to provide its people loaded coins, they would have to anticipate that there would be ties and coin flips would be needed. Unless "just to be safe" the campaign provided each worker a bag of tricks to ensure they were prepared for every eventuality: loaded coins, marked cards, condoms with holes, Amway membership applications, etc.
98.4375%.
And, in fact, there now seem to have been at least seven coin flips, and Sanders won one of them. So now we're at a mere 94.53125%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The summary says both "at least six" and "all six" suggesting the story was put out before all the facts were known simply because it's a good story. Maybe Hillary's team have just been quicker to publicise their coin-toss wins.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
At last we may have reason to vote for Hillary.
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
A little over two standard deviations.
However, as Washington Post notes, "see the update below: there were other tosses which Sanders won."
The update states:
Update: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Even his initials are BS!
Sadly, of the available candidates, he's actually the best choice. The only thing worse than the choices we have for a democratic president.. are the choices we have for a republican president.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The last thing she needs is more conspiracy theories surrounding her. One part of her is probably glad she won all six tosses, but another is thinking, "Oh great, yet another #@!% conspiracy I gotta keep answering reporters about."
I bet Fox hopes she goes all the way because it will save them a ton of money by reusing 1990's conspiracies and spin. They could fire most their staff and just replay and reread the 90's.
Table-ized A.I.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Sure, that is the most likely explanation. I just think people are too ready to believe that because something is on video it MUST be true.
love is just extroverted narcissism
When both sides of the two-party system gleefully work together to shut out any third party candidates or even any non-establishment candidates (like Ross Perot or Ron Paul), do we really still have a true democracy? Why are all the choices for this election so bad?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Something like a 1 in 64 chance right? But then if you factor in Hillarys reputation, the odds that something shady wasn't going on are probably about the same as the odds of winning 6 fair coin tosses in a row.
there will be even more desparate attempts by the DNC to fix this, and the insider party hacks, but at a certain point you can't stop a tidal wave.
They tried this last time, but you have short memories.
Didn't work then.
Won't work now.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Actually, one in 32 odds. The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1. The chance that a coin tossed two times lands with the same face up is 1 in 2, etc.
I'd check your math, it's 1 in 64.
If a coin is tossed once, you can have 2 results
H
T
If a coin is tossed twice, you have 4 potential results:
HH
HT
TH
TT
etc...
there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads
Since there has been one streak of 5 heads, there must have been at least two streaks of 4 heads, and so on.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
GOP's typical BS
You heard it here first. Sanders is a Republican plant!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Low probability things do happen.
I was deciding between two close job opportunities today. So, out of amusement, I grabbed a quarter and ended up flipping 10 heads in a row, stopping after that point.
So yeah, low probability things do indeed happen. This is why it is important to remember that all-important phrase: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!
Sure, that is the most likely explanation.
No it's not. The most likely explanation is that something with a probability of (greater than*) 1 in 64 simply happened. Such things happen all the time.
*Sanders won at least one out of at least seven flips.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You guys are all idiots. Sanders has zero chance of taking the nomination from Hilary. Look at the damn numbers instead of making up this giant narrative of bullshit about coin tosses.
Hilary has absolutely no need to cheat to win Iowa. The days of Iowa matters are long gone. The combination of the internet and the extended election cycle really means that wins in other states do less to impact the election than they used to. There isn't much truth to the idea of building up momentum in winning the Iowa will lead to winning other states. The few people who vote in primaries have mostly decided who they will vote for at this point. Sanders can't win the nomination by marginally wining a few states. We can see by the polls that Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination and Hilary has plenty of expects who know that. She doesn't want to look weak because it can hurt her in the general election, but making of a conspiracy theory about the coin flip is dumb.
Elections are are big mess run by volunteers. They are messy. People cheat a little here and there every year because they are humans and biased and can't always help it. It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature to have a favorite. The system is designed to handle a little corruption, so there isn't much point to wasting your life worrying about the small stuff.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And for extra weirdness, Sanders wins.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Either candidate, so 2/64, not 1/64.
Out of the past 48 super bowl coin tosses, there has been one streak of 5 heads, one streak of 4 heads, two streaks of 4 tails, two streaks of 3 heads, and two streaks of 3 tails.
Someone who keeps track of this kind of statistic has way too much time on his hands. It's way beyond the level of "this player has caught 3 out of 5 passes on a Thursday at night when the rain has just stopped and it is 39 degrees outside..." stuff that the color commentator loves to drop into the discussion.
She's done this before and there were six ties.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier
You think they can't convince a simple coin to vote their way when they've already had a representative that was a d3?
Last post!
so tight in the Iowa caucus
Name of Bernie Sanders's sex tape.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Wow, what a "coincidence". The chances of that happening are only about 1.5%, me thinks that there is something shady going on. Not that it swayed the caucus all on its own but it could indicate that other areas of the caucus are conducting themselves in less than impartial ways as well.
So many people are talking the "odds" of this happening.
The odds of this happening are not 1/64, or ~1.6%. They are 63:1 (63 to 1).
1/64 is the probability.
Carry on.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It was a tie, statistically speaking. People for some reason despise that concept. There can be no tie, just more and more recounts will decide it, until the original ballots are shredded from too much handling. The margin of error was larger than the difference in votes. So 50 different recounts would have had 50 different results. A toin coss would have been equally fair and much less controversial (mathematically). So yes, I agree - get over it, nothing was stolen.
Speaking as a decline-to-state voter with no party affiliation, that whole affair just proves there are far too many whiners in both parties.
If you're trying to imply that the probability that the coin tosses were fair is only 3%, then you need to take a basic class in Bayesian probability.
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
A slightly unlikely thing happened
It's not "slightly unlikely". It's a one in 64 chance.
Again, it could happen - but it's VERY unlikely. It's just a leading indicator of all sorts of other things being done not nearly so visible.
Like, for instance, posters such as yourself on all public outlets trying to claim winning six out of six coin tosses is slightly unlikely...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Let's just hope it wasn't a two-faced coin with Hillary's face on both sides.
Or worse, her face on one side and her tail on the other side.
Heads - Hillary wins
Tails - everybody loses
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'
Sorry to be a pedant but you're wrong. You are swapping the subject of your probability and hoping no one will notice.
Assuming the wheel doesn't blow up, or the room burn down, or a passing bird eat the ball, etc etc...
The probability of the wheel stopping is 1.
The probability of the wheel stopping on a number is 1.
The probability of the wheel stopping on a particular number is 1/38 (or 1/37 in Europe, that 00 bullshit is bullshit man).
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Yea, but the lady has "Lady Luck" on her side.. Logic/emotion says you press your luck when you are hot...
(BTW.. None of the above is intended to imply I think she's either a lady or hot in the way the terms are usually used on Slashdot....)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The chance that a coin tossed one time lands with the same face up is 1 in 1.
The odds that a coin lands with a particular face up on ANY throw is 1 in 2 - including the first.
The odds that you'll call the correct face ("heads" or "tails") on any throw are also 1 in 2 (.5)
The odds that you'll call the correct face 6 times in a row (not that the coin will be the same face 6 times in a row) is 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5, or 0.015625, or 1.56256% (1 in 64).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Maybe they'll toss a coin?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I knew Hillary was a witch.
he was referring to getting the same face up, regardless of what that face is. 1/32 is correct
They were presumably all Democrats, so yes.
I suppose I see that now in his original post, but I fail to see how its relevant to the topic at hand...
... they control all coin tosses for you.
Correct. Your eyes are fine.
Flipping the coin is only introducing randomness. The odds of getting A result are 1/1. Assigning a value to the result is the significant part. Assigning the first flip as a score for the Bernster or Hillarity gives 1/2 odds for that first event.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
0.5^6 = .015625
So, 1.56% chance of her winning all six coin tosses.
Either way, the delegates can vote for whoever they want, and even if Sanders had won, Hillary would still be the nominee (as she will be).
That's not the problem I have with that decision. The problem I have is that the sealed the evidence and said that nobody could look at it for, I think 20 years.
Whether the direction of the decision was correct or not, hiding the evidence removes the appearance of honesty. There was also a lot of question about voting machines being tampered with, etc. But whether it happened, or if so whether both sides were doing it equally, is not knowable with the evidence hidden.
Because of that I'm going to assume it was a matter of "the fix is in", but without much certainty. But it's definite that the appearance of the fix being in is present.
I don't, however, make any assumption that the Democrats are any less likely to fix the votes than are the Republicans. Either party in power is going to have people in office who want it to stay in power, and aren't too picky about how. (I originally wrote "Any party...", but I'm not absolutely certain that that's correct. History provides a couple of counterexamples, not many, but a couple. There would probably more if I knew more history of local groups.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Apparently, the old Clinton magic is back.
Makes as much statistical sense as lots of other political studies....
Posting this here so it gets more views.
The story is wrong. There were many more coin flips than just the 6 reported and Sanders won his fair share of them. The coin flips are a result of precincts that have an odd number of delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention. Say the precinct has 5 delegates and the vote between Clinton and Sanders was a tie. The precinct then sends 2 delegates for Clinton and 2 delegates for Sanders and the 5th delegate is decided by the coin flip. IIRC from the story I heard on NPR there are something like 11,000 delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention and it is at that convention where the actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected. So with 11,000 delegates to the state convention the results of a few coin flips aren't going to change much.
How remarkably trite.
In "at least" six precincts, what does that mean exactly? To me that implies that there were more precincts where they had to decide by coin toss, which means there could have been another 6 where Sanders won. Anyone can cherry pick a sub group of tosses out of a bigger total that came out with an unlikely result..
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Hahaha no.
The odds of EITHER Bernie OR Hillary getting 6 for 6 would be 1/32. But we are specifically talking about HILLARY, who is the candidate with all the shenanigans. If Bernie won all the coins, it's not because he knows a guy, it's because 1/64 can happen. If Hillary wins all of them... well... it COULD mean that, but...
Anyway, other posts say the 6 for 6 wasn't a the whole story anyway.
Avoir un pot de cocue
"Having the chance of a cuckold". See everything has an explanation.
As bad as crackhead George Bush Jr. was, the future carbon billionaire faggot Gore would have been possibly worse.
There is NEVER a good answer in the two party system, as they all have the exact same policies where it counts, and are all beholden to the same shadowy masters.
The coins could all have been heads OR they could all have been tails. There are 64 possible outcomes, but 2 are sufficient. 1/32 is correct.
I still don't see it. There is a 1/32 chance that *either* of the two candidates would have won all of the coin flips, but only a 1/64 chance for 'only Clinton' or 'only Sanders'
As a stat teacher, you get an A, the parent post gets an F.
There was never a recount that showed anything other than a Bush victory. You people are simply crazy.
No, the only fair process would have been to let the Florida legislature handle it like the US Constitution envisions. There's nothing in there to suggest you even get to vote for president, let alone that you have some equal-protection right to how it's counted
Coin flips did not win Iowa for Hillary Clinton.
Clinton wasn't going to(and didn't) cheat to win Iowa and it wasn't decided by a coin toss. What most people don't understand is that she doesn't need to win Iowa. Bernie doesn't have a chance because he doesn't have any super delegates. The McGovern nomination showed the democrats decades ago that allowing a more ideologically pure candidate win the nomination will likely end any chance of presidential win. This is a lesson the republicans are learning the hard way. The republicans are racing to the right to win the nomination which will alienate the general public and cost them the election again(and again and again).
...sure she did.
She'd slit the throat of a kitten live on TV if she thought it would win her voters -- she ain't above cheating, bribing the judges who tossed the coins, etc.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Nope.
People make that statistical error all the time. The question is whether to use one-tailed or two-tailed statistical tests. You are proposing using a one-tailed statistical test, but two-tailed is correct here.
The thing that seems anomalous is getting the same result six ties in a row. Whether that's six heads in a row, or six tails in a row, is irrelevant. What you should be testing for is the probability of getting the same result n times in a row, whether that is heads or tails.
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/m... tells more.
But, wait: what if you are about to say "Well, if it had been Bernie that won six times in a row, I'd accept it as chance, but since it's Hillary, I am suspicious"? Wouldn't that be a reason to use one-tailed probabilities?
No. What you just did there was to insert your own bias. The whole point of statistics is to avoid bias.
A good rule is, if you can't decide if you should use two-tailed probability or one-tailed, always use two-tailed.
--in any case, though, if the Washington Post is accurate, there were over a dozen coin flips, and Sanders also won some of the tosses.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
With practice you can win a coin toss most of the time.
http://www.wired.com/2010/11/s...
There is zero reason to assume it is a 50/50 chance.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
"Statistically speaking" is completely bogus in this context. Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.
Vote counting is an exact enumeration. "500 is statistically the same as 499" is nonsense and an attempt to deceive. If you insist on using statistical terms, I will say that the standard deviation of an exact count is zero.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
But vote counting is not an exact numeration! Run the same cards through an electronic reader and you get a different result. Even the ballots where you fill in bubbles will do the same thing. Now you remove those machines and insist that humans do the counting and the error rate goes up drastically.
Statistics is probably not the right word, I agree. Instead this is a measurement error. Two horses reached the finish line at the same time and the photograph of the finish can not discern which nose crossed the line first because the distance is less than the resolution of the camera. The votes may be a discrete number fut there's no reliable way to count them accurately. A logical conclusion would have been to split the electors equally (except that this would have angered the losing party and we'd have just as ugly a conflict in the courts). That's why people wanted electronic voting but that resulted in hurried decisions that caused many lousy machines to be purchased.
I would not blame Democrats alone, the Republicans were full of shenanigans as well. Each side felt that they were the pure honest people up against the rankest sorts of evil.
The difference in votes, comparing best result for Gore and best result for Bush according to results from a later count from news organizations, was about 750 votes. And still some people think that their votes don't count.
It was very educational though. Americans learned all about the weird ways in which we count votes, the petty officials that are put in charge of the process, the petty way that the "independent" petty officials will try to influence things, how little money is actually spent ensuring that voting is fair and properly run, etc.
did you see the way he was looking at her during the final "victory speech" Papa goona get summmmm!!!
Perhaps if you mean he's thinking of all the fresh interns and all the free time he'll have as the first gentlemen on his white house return.
If you are referring to Hillary I think she'll be pretty freakin stressed out. Beating Bernie Sanders by literally a coin flip!!!! That does not bode well. Especially with Rubio essentially tying Trump and getting damn close to Cruz, distinguishing himself and breaking away from the pack of single digit'ers, becoming a viable alternative. No, Hillary's bound to have a headache for a while.
Tears of joy ran down the face of Billy Clinton!
HillyBilly's Supplicants cheered wildly, even without narcotics, though narcotics were supplied after to soooothe the savage beast.
Cheers HillyBilly, You Bought a Caucus but what about the real Election (Erection)?
Ha ha Bitch
money supports the Clintons.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Given that Clinton did win all six flips, the odds that the flips were fair is ... hmm?
The summary is disingenuous and misleading, though if you parse it closely enough it's not necessarily an outright lie. Clinton did win at least 6 flips, but she also lost at least a handful of the dozen or so total flips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... has video of one of the several that Bernie won.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
NPR talked to the Iowa Democratic Committee; they say there were at least a dozen tiebreakers, and Sanders won at least a handful. All the 6 of 6 shows is that you can cherry pick things to make them look fishy.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/46,656
"Well, d'oh. If you change the electoral process you can get different results"
Then your electoral process is deeply flawed. With a direct process like in my country, it does not matter how many time you partition and recount : sum are commutative and associative in the end you get the same final number. But with a represenative process you have shenanigan like gerrymandering and you can "win" election before the vote and recount can change the results. That alone should tell you haw deeply flawed the process is.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Going forensic, here's the first questions to ask-
Of course, let's see the coin.
Was it the same coin each time?
Who produced it?
Was it a monetary coin (as implied) or some special ceremonial coin used especially for this purpose?
Did Clinton always pick heads or tails or did she vary?
Did Clinton always pick and Bernie took the other or did both Clinton and Bernie take turns picking?
Is there video?
Can we get a magician on the case? If you were going to do this "trick" what is the strongest version you could perpetrate? Could you do it with a fair coin you'd never seen or touched? Could you go hi-tech with some sort of unseen electromagnetic or other force-field type device? The sky's the limit here since the stakes are so high and the money and know-how available to the cheaters is virtually unlimited.
Sleuths of the Internet , I Summon Thee...
The probability that Clinton could have chosen all size correctly are
probability of choosing first one (1) correctly = 1/2
and the next (2) 1/2 x 1/2 =1/4
(3) 1/8
(4) (1/16)
(5) 1/32
(6) 1/64
answer: 1/64. This conclusion is as elementary as probability gets
Are you using a six sided coin?
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate
There is always tiger in my home but that tiger is so afraid of people that when the doorknob turns the tiger goes and hides and he is such a good hider that we can never find him.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.
I'm not even American, and I know that's not what the actual investigations showed. They showed that Gore would have won under a state-wide recount, but that a recount of just the precincts that had obvious problems would have still left Bush with a very narrow lead.
Other, some would say civilised, countries have rules that say when the result is that close it is mandatory to do a recount by hand with scrutineers from all interested parties present to verify the count, so that there is not even the appearance of corruption in their elections.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them.
Why is this only modded to a score of three? I want to vote for Bernie, but the idea that Clinton was cheating at coin tosses was a little silly, and I'm glad to see the complete picture posted. Now, mod it the rest of the way up, folks. :)
TOSSER!!!!
The odds of winning 6 coin tosses in a row is (IIRC) 0.5^6 which is a mere 1.56% chance. I'd like to know if Hillary provided the coins.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Nasser Hussain, as England cricket captain, lost 14 consecutive coin tosses to decide who batted first. 6 is a 1 in 64 chance: 14 is much longer odds. (1 in 16,384).
It's not exactly hard information to find.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There was a 1 in 32 chance that one of the candidates would have won all 6 tosses.
It is hardly astronomical, and given that we have 50 states in the union, a relatively unsurprising event.
Hahaha no.
The odds of EITHER Bernie OR Hillary getting 6 for 6 would be 1/32. But we are specifically talking about HILLARY, who is the candidate with all the shenanigans.
What you just did here is to insert your own a-priori personal bias into the statistics.
Your personal bias is fine. Just don't confuse it with statistics.
If Bernie won all the coins, it's not because he knows a guy, it's because 1/64 can happen.
Your statement "result X would show shenanigans if it favors candidate Y, but would be explained by random chance if it favors candidate Z" is a statement of personal bias, not a calculation of statistics.
Anyway, other posts say the 6 for 6 wasn't a the whole story anyway.
Yes, exactly. In fact, the best-documented results are from the counties that did their reporting using the election software (about half the counties reported using the software, and half reported by hand). In these counties, Sanders won six coin flips, and Clinton won one.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...
So, a more interesting question might be this: given that there were about a dozen coin flips, and Clinton and Sanders won roughly equal numbers, what are the chances that the six that Clinton won would be commented on by the news media, while the six that Sanders won would be ignored? Is this random, or is this bias?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The Wikipage leaves out a vital detail:
The Republican delegates referred to (the 3 party leaders from each state) ARE REQUIRED BY PARTY RULES to vote the way the majority of the voters in their state voted. These delegates in the RNC are not free to throw their weight behind somebody the voters rejected, and thus are NOT "superdelagates" like in the Democrat party.
There's more than one way to be biased. The obvious way is by directly lying. The less-obvious way, which is more-often on sites like Wikipedia where trolls are always trying to deceive, is by leaving out vital details.
There were many more than six tosses, and Sanders won some of the others http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/...
When she and Bill left the WhiteHouse in 2000 and claimed to be "flat broke", she did not immediately toss money into cattle futures again where she was apparently an expert...
For funding her 2008 run and now her 2016 run, she did not directly use her investor wizardry..... nope, she gave speeches behind closed doors for nearly every Wall St investment bank. Who knows what she said? Perhaps she dispensed her investment strategy wisdom for hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour. Maybe she taught her investment techniques to her daughter and that's what she, in turn, dispenses in her super-expensive behind-closed-doors talks too...
Or, maybe, rich people paying to hear Hillary and Chelsea talk is just a way to legally funnel money to a potentially super-powerful politician and write-off the contribution as a "business expense"...
Occam's Razor, anybody>
I'm not shilling for the RNC, but we know the pecking order among the Republicans because the numbers were released to the press in real-time. Why did the DNC not release their vote counts in real-time and why were there no verifiable numbers released even by midnight after the counts were done?
This stinks and I think Bernie was robbed. Debbie Wassermam-Shultz has been running the DNC as a Hillary machine for several years now and I do not think she and her pals are ever going to let the voters choose anybody but Hillary as the Democratic nominee.
Well that seems quite obvious, doesn't it?
Clinton's team won 6 out of 6 coin tosses????? Maybe they learned how to 'improve their odds' from the replublican operatives?
Myself, I feel 'the Bern'!
Lets not forget, whatever you attribute the close call too, it lead to events that over time will cost our nation 10 trillion dollars, that would have in all likelyhood bwen put to better use had Gore won rhe election, I would say rhe same results would happen with Sanders.
Hey Slashdot, you wanted ideas about things you could do to improve yourself. How about adding a retraction and/or additional information to a summary after it's been shown that the whole thing is a load of hooey?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's not exactly hard information to find.
Yeah, someone with too much time on his hands has a web page with the information on it. Thank goodness we have the interwebs so we can all enjoy such an enriching and valuable tidbit of information to make our daily lives just that much more livable.
I think I'll go watch some cute cat videos because I feel a bit depressed right now. And maybe later I'll go look at what all the people instagramming every meal they've had ate for breakfast. But wait, someone just reported the critical detail that he's walking in the park and saw a bird. Gotta go... this could be big!
Yeah, but I'm still going to be suspicious at p < 0.05.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
i mean, technically he won, right? why not just discount ties, is that so crazy?
I want off this planet.
But prior to them picking which side of the coin goes to which person, each of the two choices had a 1/32 chance of winning all the tosses. Only afterwards can you claim 1/64 when taking both people into account.
Actually, they each had a 1/64 chance of winning all of the tosses. There was only ever a 1/32 chance of SOMEONE winning all of the tosses.
What a crock. Only one calls the toss. Have you ever actually done a coin-toss?
If you want to be pedantic, neither of them call the toss-- neither candidate was even present. The county clerk of elections both flips the coin (or designates the person who does so), and calls which result goes to which candidate (or designates the person who does so). If the clerk calls heads for one candidate, they are calling tails for the other.
That's the way coin tosses work: calling heads one way also means calling tails the other.
What I find more puzzling, and probably more worthy of attention, is that the media almost instantly put out the story "Hillary won six out of six coin flips"-- but the best reported actual data is that, of the coin flips that were officially recorded, Sanders won five out of six against Clinton, and one out of one against O’Malley. (e.g., this report).
So, was it just coincidence that the media happened to get 6 out of 6 data points about Hillary winning coin flips against Bernie, but zero out of six data points about Bernie winning coin flips against Hillary? What are the odds of that? Well, the same calculation.
The original six out of six number apparently came from the The Des Moines Register, who based their reporting on what had been posted to Facebook (!). In a later story, they stated that the actual found of coin flips was "unknown".
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
..except I don't see any fuss being made about a Clinton campaign staffer impersonating a precinct captain, and being caught on video perpetrating shenanigans...