Political Probabilities

[Jack Jones]

Suppose that the war in Iraq was a multiple choice test (1 of 4) that George had failed with 50% correct. Now suppose that John also took the test and answered not just one, or a few, but every question differently than did George. The test was extremely hard, so both boys were guessing.

Q: What was the probable score for John?
A: 16.67%

Q: What, instead of 50%, would George's score had to have been for John to have done as well or better?
{HINT: Law of Large Numbers}
A:

Q: Assuming Bush has done a half-assed job on Iraq, what could we expect from Kerry?
A:

[Greg Ross]

Jack,

Assuming your second question was not entirely rhetorical...

Normally, if both boys were guessing, one would expect them both to score 25%. So if George scored 50%, I would wonder if he really was guessing. But setting aside disbelief,...

If George scored 0%, John would be expected to get 33%, since George would have eliminated one of the three wrong answers on each question. (But now I'm wondering how John would know which answers George gave. Methinks he peeked!)

Now, for each percent George gets right, that's 1% of the 33% that John could not get right. John's score, then can be calculated as 33% of 100% minus George's score. So if you want the score (S) where both will score the same, solve:

  S = 0.33*(1-S)
3*S = 1-S        ' Multiplying both sides by 3
4*S = 1          ' Adding S to both sides
  S = 0.25       ' Dividing both sides by 4

So, coincidentally, (and as might be expected by using intuition alone), if both boys "guess", they get the same score of 25%.

I assume your third question WAS intended to be rhetorical, but I'm going to respond with a couple of points anyway:

1. For each question on the real-world Iraq test, there are going to be more than 2 or 4 possible answers.
2. Among those possible answers, there will often be no correct answer. (Or even a good answer.)
3. HOPEFULLY, if John Kerry is elected, he won't simply RANDOMLY choose answers, but rather will use a measure of wisdom to select one of the better answers for each question, so his outcome in Iraq should be better than is hinted at by your scenario.

BTW: I actually tend to agree with your apparent opinion on the two current candidates, I just had to point out some logical flaws in your "argument".

[Jack Jones]

Greg,

For each question on the real-world Iraq test, there are going to be more than 2 or 4 possible answers. Among those possible answers, there will often be no correct answer. (Or even a good answer.)

You are so right! Didn’t I say the test was extremely hard?

HOPEFULLY, if John Kerry is elected, he won't simply RANDOMLY choose answers, but rather will use a measure of wisdom to select one of the better answers for each question, so his outcome in Iraq should be better than is hinted at by your scenario.

Of course! But my over-simplification of the problem was intended to show that his statement that he would do almost everything differently brings his wisdom into question. Your calculations show that, even if the bad guy’s disregard for the rule of law has turned it into a crapshoot, then it is a mathematical certainty that Kerry’s approach would fare no better. But it is not a crapshoot; and, the Bush & Co. wisdom/approval has by all estimates been at least 50%. What follows is that doing almost everything differently is preposterous and almost certain to fare worse.

[Adam Y.]

HOPEFULLY, if John Kerry is elected, he RANDOMLY choose answers, but rather will use a measure of wisdom to select one of the better answers for each question, so his outcome in Iraq should be better than is hinted at by your scenario.

Of course everyone knows that he is going to cheat and look at George Bushes test.

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Of course everyone knows that he is going to cheat and look at George Bushes test.

And everyone knows that George will copy off of Karl and Richard's tests.

But seriously, where did you take that 16.67% from? And such things as this cannot be made so simple. And who says John will guess, John most definitely knows the mistakes that George has made and will thus perform better than George. So lets say that George got 25% on this test. John will then get at least 25% because he knows the mistakes that George made.

[Jake177]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Now suppose that John also took the test and answered not just one, or a few, but every question differently than did George.

Disclaimer:
*****I AM NOT TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE, I AM SIMPLY STATING MY OWN OPINION. I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE TO ANYONE WHO FINDS IT OFFENSIVE.*****


Would that include going into Iraq in the first place? If it did, then I personally would give Kerry 100% on the test and an A for the rest of the term.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Now suppose that John also took the test and answered not just one, or a few, but every question differently than did George.

I don't think it is a fair assumption to make that George Bush and John Kerry would answer every question differently. They are not complete opposites in terms of their opinions of the war in Iraq. In other words, the two candidates' opinions are not truly black and white from eachother. Unless you know the exact percentage of opinions that the two candidates share, predicting how well they would do on this type of test is not statisically viable. Results based on the assumption that Bush and Kerry are polar opposites of each other couldn't possibly be accurate.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Jake177

Disclaimer:
*****I AM NOT TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE, I AM SIMPLY STATING MY OWN OPINION. I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE TO ANYONE WHO FINDS IT OFFENSIVE.*****

Ya know.. It's kinda sad that you even had to put a disclaimer on your post like that..

What a shame..

People need to chill...

[Jack Jones]

But seriously, where did you take that 16.67% from?

George got 50%, which means that John had a 1/3 chance at each of the rest.
1/3 * ½ = 1/6 = 16.67%
Of course you realize the test was rigged for sake of argument – to make a point.

And such things as this cannot be made so simple.

Exactly my point, Josh. It is not a simple as raising one finger and claiming to make everything well by doing almost everything differently!
(Note: The index finger move should not be confused with the clasping of hands, nor the snappy salute, nor the folding of arms across chest, which are meant to convey piety, bravado, and compassion. Oh, the crossing of arms is Teresa’s move – never mind that one.)

Would that include going into Iraq in the first place?

That’s a heck of a good question, Jake! One that each of us must decide for ourselves. Take a few minutes to read why Bush and I think it was not only necessary and inevitable, but good.

Would that include going into Iraq in the first place?

Such a good question that I had to quote it twice You tell me what Kerry might have done, because he certainly hasn’t.

People need to chill...

Excellent advice, Elgin! And chill I will, but not before I caution again that the problem is way to complex to be explained away with a slogan or waved away with ones index finger.

[Bill Gold]

Can someone please explain what this hypothetical test is? What were the supposed questions/tasks?

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Such a good question that I had to quote it twice You tell me what Kerry might have done, because he certainly hasn’t.

In my (not so) humble opinion, the question of what Kerry might have done differently with regard to invading Iraq is pointless. We’re there for better or worse (I believe worse), and we need to pick the candidate we think can best resolve the situation and get us the hell out of there while leaving a sovereign and secure nation in our wake. International (read: French, German, Russian, and other thus far alienated nations) troops and money are needed to accomplish this. The only way we’ll get those troops and cash is by apologizing to those countries for our unlawful, haphazardly run, intelligence deficient, unilateral war and our overall arrogant and completely self-serving foreign policy. President Bush has proved himself to remain steadfastly wrong and unapologetic, despite mounting costs (over $225 billion), American casualties (1,040+ in Iraq alone), and civilian casualties (over 15,000 in Iraq alone), when it comes to our foreign policy. There’s no chance for us to succeed unless we deviate from our current Iraq/foreign policy positions, but Bush doesn’t want another reason to be called a flip-flopper, right?

Horray for ~4:15am posts!

[Jake177]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

That’s a heck of a good question, Jake! One that each of us must decide for ourselves. Take a few minutes to read why Bush and I think it was not only necessary and inevitable, but good.

My only problem with this article is that it makes an assumption that I don't agree with, and that is this: just because we have survived for 213 years on one system of government (note: I'm counting from the ratification of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence) that must be the best system, and it is our job to spread it around the world so that everyone can be free. The last time that I checked, forcing people to accept democracy isn't giving them freedom, letting them decide what kind of government they want based on their own history and beliefs is.

[Adam Y.]

My only problem with this article is that it makes an assumption that I don't agree with, and that is this: just because we have survived for 213 years on one system of government (note: I'm counting from the ratification of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence) that must be the best system, and it is our job to spread it around the world so that everyone can be free. The last time that I checked, forcing people to accept democracy isn't giving them freedom, letting them decide what kind of government they want based on their own history and beliefs is.

We did that with Iraq about ten years ago. We told them to go rebel and pick their own leader. It didn't work at all. Also, historically I know the emperor of Japan still exisisted after World War II because of what you are saying.

In my (not so) humble opinion, the question of what Kerry might have done differently with regard to invading Iraq is pointless. We’re there for better or worse (I believe worse), and we need to pick the candidate we think can best resolve the situation and get us the hell out of there while leaving a sovereign and secure nation in our wake. International (read: French, German, Russian, and other thus far alienated nations) troops and money are needed to accomplish this.

I don't think France and Germany are ever going to help us no matter what president is in place. Im not sure about Russia though. They might change their minds.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

I don't think France and Germany are ever going to help us no matter what president is in place. Im not sure about Russia though. They might change their minds.

Now who has the pessimistic outlook for the future?

France and Germany were upset that we didn’t let weapons inspectors do their job, and that we unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow its government. If they see that the American public now rejects that kind of action by removing that leader and his advisors, then, if we put forth an honest effort to include them (France/Germany/etc.) on decision making and peacekeeping control, they would have no reason not to aid us. An apology and a humble foreign policy (with regard to our allies) are needed, and George Bush has proven himself incapable of both. Why would anyone want to help us if we, as American citizens speaking in our once every 2 years voice, continue to support a President and a Congress that has continually insulted and belittled powerful foreign nations who have the ability to assist us. The only chance we have to recruit foreign ground troops and monetary support is to change our own leadership so that it is less toxic to our international relations.

[Jack Jones]

...mounting costs (over $225 billion), American casualties (1,040+ in Iraq alone)...

Horray for ~4:15am posts!

So much for chill…

Don’t ya just love statistics. We can spin them any way we want. Let’s compare the State of California with Iraq. The two are about the same area. Iraq has 5/7 the population of California.

Although many of the American deaths in Iraq were accidental, or an act of war, let’s label all 1,040+ murders. The murder rate in California is 6.8/100,000, which means that, in the same time period, there were 3,610. Adjusting for population we see that an American was about 2.5 times more likely to be murdered in California than in Iraq.

If it’s not the human cost, then it must be the $225 billion that should dissuade us? Well, according to extrapolated census statistics, federal funds and grants expended in California during the same period have exceeded $300 trillion – that’s over a thousand times the amount spent on the liberation of Iraq!

Maybe we should get the hell out of California and leave a sovereign and secure nation in our wake.

Ok (removing tongue from cheek) this is not about numbers, nor our buddies the French; and it’s for damned sure not about Vietnam. This is about the fact that we were attacked and will be again. How many times and how vicious they are will depend on how long we allow tyrants the freedom to oppress the third world. More precisely, on how long we allow it to remain a third world.

The reason Bush is unapologetic is that the coalition of the unwilling do not deserve one. It is they who aid and comfort the enemies of freedom; it is they who want profit from absentee colonialism; it is from them that the third world should demand an apology. If, instead of bringing down every last rogue state and offering the chance for prosperity, we revert to chasing boogiemen into hiding, with the occasional capture and subsequent release when the unwilling buckle again to the boogiemen’s clones, then the third world will continue to export its pain.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Adjusting for population we see that an American was about 2.5 times more likely to be murdered in California than in Iraq.

Your statistics are inaccurate due to the fact that you forgot to add (12927+) Iraqi casualties. Recalculated, 4-5 times as likely to die in Iraq

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

$300 trillion – that’s over a thousand times the amount spent on the liberation of Iraq!
Maybe we should get the hell out of California and leave a sovereign and secure nation in our wake.

The citizens of California disagreed with the money handlings in the government. They petitioned for a recall election, got it, and elected somebody else. Following your logic, maybe we should follow their lead and ditch our national leader. I hear California is doing much better now.

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

This is about the fact that we were attacked and will be again.

You sound so sure. I thought Democrats were the pessimistic ones?

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

More precisely, on how long we allow it to remain a third world.

It seems that if we spent 1% of what we did on invading Iraq on increasing standard of living in, say, Pakistan, then they'd have 2.25 billion ($) less reasons to support terrorism. Happy educated people are less likely to become terrorists than disgruntled oppressed poor ones.