Why does the government like certain numbers so much, in terms of statistics?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I remember seeing the percentages 47, 49 and 51 in poll/election results all too many times. A vote count result of 49 and 51 seems to be a particular favorite. Why not 41 and 59, or 38 and 62?

Maybe 47 sticks in my mind because of Romney's blunder claiming that percentage of citizens think they deserve government handouts. But it still seems common, nonetheless.

Is there a reason that exists for the government to prefer certain numbers over others... assuming they do?




posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
They're just one side or the other and so can prove all sorts of things technically but you need to see the sample size/demographics as well as 99% of 1000 people want to relax the laws on underage sex when asked outside a NAMBLA get together for example but ask the rest of the world all you're hear is the asking for names/addresses of the 99% and the coiling of rope

Statistics can pretty much be used to say anything you want if you spend the time asking the right questions in the right places and interpret them in certain ways



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EllaMarina
 


Personally, I think it's becoming the surest sign of fraud in election. When it's a nail biter of a finish with contest and challenge available to any and all, if they choose? Someone ripped the election...or tried to and lost. Either way, you're right, I'm noticing this 47/53 to 49/50 split is becoming almost the norm and generally in certain levels and class of election, at that. National, and the higher? The more likely.

I know we're a nation divided and not too far from evenly for population and voting blocks ..but what ARE the odds that the same %'s keep coming, year upon year and elections across a decade and more? They like playing us against each other and if it's a photo finish, it's a source of tension and anger for whoever lost ...until the next one.

It's becoming as predictable as anything else in this crooked pretzel we call a system.

edit on 9-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Just another angle to add on this topic.

Psychology is an important part of an effective media campaign. Wether one is running for office, or promoting (read propegandising) a certain veiw on a divisive topic. Ever wonder why products in stores are 99 pence or cents, instead of a straight pound or dollar? Back a while, I thought that it might be a tax issue, but it turns out that it is all about psychology. When a product is just 99p people are more likely to purchase it on a whim, because it is not a whole pound.

Seems ridiculous, but its been working well for major companies for years. I would imagine that this simple marketing ploy, of using numbers which please the target audience for some reason, is not lost on governments, media organisations, journalists and lobbyists. Of course, because the ploy is so well known, it has to be applied in a more subtle manner to work in this context, but thats what psychology is all about. Its about being able to use very nuanced tactics to either learn about a persons inner core, or in other cases, about knowing how to press a persons buttons in order to produce a desired result.

The military (most nations) know about this, which is why there is so much attention paid to psyops. I wouldnt be at all suprised to find that the numbers you are seeing have some suprising characteristics, discovered during psychological testing of some sort. I often see the percentages 47, 51, and 54 when watching BBC News. One COULD merely assume that the reason for that is that my nation is divided on some key issues, and God knows I could believe that without some clandestine campaign backing it up. But, I can see where you are coming from in being concerned, and this is an interesting topic.

Good spot!



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Great answers. Thank you.
A sign of election fraud is exactly what I suspect it is. As for the psyops theory, I think there's something about the not quite neck-to-neck results that keep the population divided and going back to the polls to make sure that their side is the 51% next time.

edit on 9-5-2013 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


The psychology behind that is very debatable. And it typically is debating on an ongoing basis. I, personally, believe that it is true for nonthinking people. To thinking people, silly tricks won't fool them.

As it regards the OP: What you call :"elections" and "news" are nothing more than propaganda. Think about it, and it is plainly obvious.

If you have a runaway election, then you become disengaged. When you are disengaged, you don't pay attention. Your attention is what they want, and what they are trying to control. They want a nation of folks who are engaged in the daily dialogue. Used to be the pundits would roll out every morning with talking points in hand. Nowadays, the talking points are rolled out via various blogs and news outlets, and the masses spend the entire day replaying the daily editorial shouting matches that you see on the MSM outlets.

You are being kept in a constant state of emergency, with death and destruction just a chin hair away. In elections, it is just 1% away.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


BBFT I couldnt agree more with your assesment, in that I accept that such tactics only really work on idiots. However, with the idiot block being so powerful and large as it is in this day and age, I think it should be a matter of concern.

Lets face it, the great majority of propegandism only works on idiots, but is none the less savagely successful.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Because without proper context you can make stats mean whatever you want, skew them whatever way you want and make them prove what ever you want and, its also as an easy sensationalist point/sound bite for laymen to understand.

Hows it go?

Lies, damn lies and statistics.



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


It may be possible that world population average intelligence has decreased over the years. Humans have proliferated greatly. And current belief is that the more affluent, interpreted as the more intelligent and capable, tend to procreate less frequently than the less affluent, interpreted as less intelligent and capable. And I am not willing to argue that, either, because it does seem to be true. At least in the area I am in.

But I would presume that the general spread is, for the most part, unchanged. Only because intelligence to me doesn't seem to be completely hereditary when measured by industriousness. I see "no goods" come from affluent people quite frequently. As well as more affluent people with very humble roots.

Thus, it may be that "these days" have always been when referring to how simple minded folks can tend to be.

But what do I know? LOL



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Heh... from our previous interactions, I would say you know plenty sir!

However, you have to admit, modern media influences promote the idiots, and mock the intellectual. Look at it this way, how many people watch Jersey Shore, religiously do you think? And, how many have a subscription to Discovery's more science heavy content?

I think the idiot block do damned well out of things these days is all I am saying, and they are increasing thier power. Ignorance might not be bliss, but it appeals to great multitudes.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
What an interesting thread. I find myself disagreeing with almost everything that has been said.


Originally posted by EllaMarina
A sign of election fraud is exactly what I suspect it is.

Are you saying that some sort of fraud is being perpetrated to ensure that the results in the election are as close as they can be (e.g. 49/51)? If so, that is certainly very different to what I thought election fraud was all about.



I think there's something about the not quite neck-to-neck results that keep the population divided

I see this as being completely the other way round. There is something about the population being divided that keeps the results not quite neck-and-neck. What is that "something"? I'll quote Wrabbit on that: "a nation divided and not too far from evenly for population and voting blocks". With a nation split like that, surely 49/51 is EXACTLY the sort of result you'd expect. But it goes further - isn't there going to always be a tendency towards the 50/50 level anyway? Imagine an election ended with a 30/70 result. Over time, and before the next election, wouldn't the "30" party's policies start to move towards those of the "70" party's? If they don't, surely they are looking at another 30/70 defeat next time around.





 
3

log in

join