Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TexKan Gee ya'll are smart!!.............
My majority Bubba -
100% = all the votes (even tho it was only prob 30% of reg. voters to begin with)
48 + 45+ 17 = 110....... now we ALL know we aint gettin 110 pennies or percent out of ANY politician.......... no matter what the party!!
So here ya go:
Clinton - 48% (if you say so)
Losers - 52%
More folks liked the losers as a group than they did the alternative....... Clinton needs 51% to get a majority......... but remember the very very small percent of folks that vote anyway........ that's why there's so much discontentment.......... easier to bitch than vote......... |
So math isn't my strong point!
I can see your point if there were only two. But if there are three or more you have to seperate it further. By the way, I didn't say Clinton for a reason, I even went as far as saying him/her in the example. My scenario would work no matter who got the votes either in the past or in the future.
Let me fix my math and also look at your example.
Candidate 1 = 48%
Candidate 2 = 52%
Using an example of your scenario candidate 2 has the majority of the votes.
Using more than two candidates.
Candidate 1 = 48%
Candidate 2 = 35%
Candidate 3 = 17%
Using this scenario, candidate 1 has the majority of the votes. How do I come to this conclusion?
#1-48%>#2-35%
#1-48%>#3-17%
Comparing candidate 1's total to both #2 and #3 he/she clearly had more votes than either of the other candidates. More still means majority.