Days after Ohio voters passed Issue 1 and codified abortion rights into Ohio’s constitution, Republicans are not accepting the election results.
In a new, unhinged press release issued by the Ohio House Republican Committee, GOP members rant that “foreign billionaires” impacted the election results and call the results tainted by so-called “foreign interference.” It is unclear what they are referring to.
Ohio voters overwhelmingly voted ‘Yes’ on Issue 1 by a margin of 56.6% to 43.4%.
The press release further argues that the results of the election do not invalidate a 6-week abortion ban previously passed by the Ohio Legislature and that “no amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”
I would not call 56.6% vs 43.4% “overwhelming,” but okay.
A double digit win? What would you consider overwhelming?
Hm, personally, I’d say 80/20 split would be “overwhelming.” Like, I never thought this would be controversial to say that 6% is not mindblowingly overwhelming. It’s just a dumb word to use and shows the site’s obvious left bias.
56-43 is a bit more than 6%, although I’m no mathematician
6% away from 50-50.
Your concept of the math is wrong. A two-thirds majority, where twice as many people have one opinion versus the other, has only a 17% difference from 50/50. The problem with looking at it like that is you ignore half the spread between opinions and that becomes more pronounced the greater the margin. Having 30% more supporters on one side than the other ( the math: 56.6÷(100-56.6)) is pretty significant, if not overwhelming. I’d say it was more than okay, and Ohio’s constitution says it’s more than enough.
Thanks for trying to explain rather than saying I’m apparently commenting in bad faith.
Considering it only take a 2/3 majority to remove the President from office, your split seems to be arbitrary and made in bad faith to minimize the results.
Also, it’s 13.2%, not 6.6%.
I never said it was some kind of objective measure, and bad faith? Wth? You asked me for my opinion so I gave it to you. Your baseline of “to remove the president” is also arbitrary. I would have loved for the vote to be overwhelming, I’m sorry to say that I don’t find this result to be that. And you can’t say it’s a double digit win when “win” is 50%.
In America, that’s overwhelming. Compare it to recent president election results.
Maybe not overwhelming, but it didn’t just squeak by either. For a historically controversial topic such as this 6.6 percent is substantial.
56.6% - 43.4% = 13.2%. What kind of math are you doing to get 6.6%?
I just saw how far above 50% it was since that’s the mark you have to clear. I’ve always thought of elections and other votes that way. Not sure why. Never thought about it. Sure, using the more accurate 13.2% would have proven the point I was making even better, but I didn’t really think that far ahead. I just wanted to give the context that controversial issues trend more toward 50/50 so passing with a 56.6 vote is nothing to turn your nose at. But to answer your question, I subtracted 50 from 56.6.
Honestly, I got defensive and wouldn’t have written any of this if you hadn’t said “what kind of math are you doing” like it wasn’t t obvious what I did. But I guess it gave myself and others the opportunity to understand why we use the total percent and not how far above 50.
Just to give some context on how numbers can be misleading, a 40 / 60 split is only 10 away from 50; however, even though that 10% margin is small, in reality it that means there are 50% more people in favor of something.
For every 40 people that don’t want something, 60 people do.
For every 4 people that don’t want something, 6 people do.
For every 2 people that don’t want something, 3 people do.
3 divided by 2 is 1.5, or 150%.
So, in this 56.6% versus 43.4% split, 30.4% more people are in favor of this bill.
But percentages are still weird. So even my example can be misleading. It’s all about how you interpret it. For instance, a 95 / 5 split would mean 19x as many people want one outcome. So the gap is 90% in the ratio, but 1800% more people are in the 95 camp. (1800% more implies 1800% over 100%, so 1900% total, or just 5 x 19)
Another way to look at the data of the 43/56 split.
If 10,000 people are against it, then 13,040 people are for it.
If 10,000 people are for it, then 6,960 people are against it.
Numbers are tricky like that
Good on you for this, seriously. I sounded like a dick, but was asking earnestly.
And like, I knew you were being earnest! Tone is hard to get across on the Internet. But emotions react before the critical thinking can do it’s work =P
It’s 6.6% away from an even split.
But is a zero-sum outcome, so the 13.2% differential is what’s actually relevant.
I’m certain you’re right. It took me way too long to figure out why it was so confusing to me, actually. What would be the opposite of a zero-sum game? Is there a term for it?
That is a great question… That I don’t know the answer to. Non Zero Sum according this website. It’s a edu domain, but idk it’s credibility.
Welp.
Same tbh
That’s not how you compare votes. It’s not like the only other option for that 6.6% was to flip their vote to the opposite side. Abstaining is also a valid “vote”, so to speak, and more likely for those who felt passionate enough to vote in favor of it in the first place if they weren’t going to vote for it for some reason. If the number of people that make up that 6.6% abstained, i.e. just didn’t vote at all, the measure would still have passed with the majority. The full 13.2% would have had to abstain from voting for the vote to have broken even. Which is why you take the difference between the vote percentages, not the difference to 50%.
56.6 is more than 30% more than 43.4. ie, 30% more people voted yes than voted no. that’s at the very least a substantial margin.
deleted by creator
Yeah, it’s a slim majority. I want it to be overwhelming, but let’s not distort the facts.
That is not a slim majority.