On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:47:34 -0700, Willi & Sue wrote:

wrote:



I'll take your word for it. So we have 70% of 70% - 49% percent of the voters,
so the majority of the citizenry has either spoken against your position or
remained silent for whatever reason.


What kind of math is that???

It's the kind that results from:

" And just how many voters have passed these measures?

The last one was close to 70%" and

" Again, how many voters have said no?

Over 70%"


It wasn't just the people that voted for
the acquisition of the land that were allowed to vote on a different use
for some of those funds. Approximately 70% of all voters voted for the
acquisition of new public land. In a later election, over 70% of all
voters rejected an initiative to allow a portion of those appropriated
funds to be moved into the general budget.

OK, now, as you _appear_ to be restating it, I don't simply take your word for
what you appear to be trying to say: that all (potential) voters voted, and 70%
of them voted, simply put, for (more) "public lands." I'm not saying it's
impossible, or that you're wrong, just that I won't readily accept that two such
elections had a turnout such that the above numbers are accurate, as the above
_seems_ to imply "70% of all voters voted for the acquisition..." IOW, it
could also be accurately said that 100% of voters voted - obvious, but accurate.

OTOH, if what you are really saying is that 70% of those who voted cast their
vote as you state, that's a different implication as that could have been a
turnout of 10 voters, 7 of whom voted as you say. In any case, I'll be happy to
look at something that shows some actual data.


TC,
R

Willi