Milliken and again and again...
Why did Kingston elect Peter Miliken again? According to some odd new reasearch, it
s because Kingstonians are creatures of habit. Perhaps it isn't the research that's odd, but the analysis. Seems to me that if - as the reaserach posits - an electoral district swings by more than 66% in voter turn-out that you've got a less than habitual result on your hands.
Supposedly the voter turnout numbers in the "Student Housing" area surrounding Queen's increased from 370 in 2004 to 1,012 in 2006. And the intrepid Kingston Whig-Standard attributes this increase to the timing of the election, stating that "in 2004, the election took place after the school year was over, meaning that many of out-of-town students had returned home..." And we're supposed to believe that these same students all voted for Peter Milliken while here, huh? I'm not saying they didn't, for I haven't got any scientific way of proving that. But... you'll notice, dear, that I'm also not claiming that these same people voted FOR Milliken.. since there is no data to back that up, either. Seems to me that another reporter did make that unsubstantiated claim...
Students, in the throes of their idealism might indeed be more inclined to vote than your average citizen. Being that students usually have a component of liberal arts in their education they may be more inclined to vote in an anti-conservative manner. But does this mean that these votes would have gone to Milliken just because he wasn't a conservative? I don't think you could count on it.
Students are anti-establishment, too, if I may elaborate on the preconceptions put forth in the above paragraph (which were relied upon, I believe in the Whig article) and this being the case, they would naturally vote against the status quo, ergo against Milliken. My immediate hypothesis is that more votes would have been tossed towards Hutchinson (NDP) or for fringe candidates than for stodgey old Pete.
Who knows?
What I'd like to impress here today is that newspaper reports that analyse data are usually biased in favour of whoever pays the bill for the ink. Remember that whenever you read anything in any print publication. Remember when you watch television that the advertisers are the Gods of information. Remember that magazine truth is bought and paid for before it hits the newsstands, and possibly even before it even happens.
This is a crazy world we live in, folks, even here in Kingston. Don't believe everything you read. And do NOT ever base your vote on who you think Sydenham Ward is voting for.
outie.
P.S - i'd like to apologize to anyone who read this entry before I had time to edit it. Gosh golly there were a lot of mistakes in it. Probably still are a couple - no one can do a great job of self-editing. But - I've fixed what I saw, and had intended to do so before publishing.. but software beign what it is, I didn't get the chance. (rassa-frackin-mumber-jumber) :) outie again.
s because Kingstonians are creatures of habit. Perhaps it isn't the research that's odd, but the analysis. Seems to me that if - as the reaserach posits - an electoral district swings by more than 66% in voter turn-out that you've got a less than habitual result on your hands.
Supposedly the voter turnout numbers in the "Student Housing" area surrounding Queen's increased from 370 in 2004 to 1,012 in 2006. And the intrepid Kingston Whig-Standard attributes this increase to the timing of the election, stating that "in 2004, the election took place after the school year was over, meaning that many of out-of-town students had returned home..." And we're supposed to believe that these same students all voted for Peter Milliken while here, huh? I'm not saying they didn't, for I haven't got any scientific way of proving that. But... you'll notice, dear, that I'm also not claiming that these same people voted FOR Milliken.. since there is no data to back that up, either. Seems to me that another reporter did make that unsubstantiated claim...
Students, in the throes of their idealism might indeed be more inclined to vote than your average citizen. Being that students usually have a component of liberal arts in their education they may be more inclined to vote in an anti-conservative manner. But does this mean that these votes would have gone to Milliken just because he wasn't a conservative? I don't think you could count on it.
Students are anti-establishment, too, if I may elaborate on the preconceptions put forth in the above paragraph (which were relied upon, I believe in the Whig article) and this being the case, they would naturally vote against the status quo, ergo against Milliken. My immediate hypothesis is that more votes would have been tossed towards Hutchinson (NDP) or for fringe candidates than for stodgey old Pete.
Who knows?
What I'd like to impress here today is that newspaper reports that analyse data are usually biased in favour of whoever pays the bill for the ink. Remember that whenever you read anything in any print publication. Remember when you watch television that the advertisers are the Gods of information. Remember that magazine truth is bought and paid for before it hits the newsstands, and possibly even before it even happens.
This is a crazy world we live in, folks, even here in Kingston. Don't believe everything you read. And do NOT ever base your vote on who you think Sydenham Ward is voting for.
outie.
P.S - i'd like to apologize to anyone who read this entry before I had time to edit it. Gosh golly there were a lot of mistakes in it. Probably still are a couple - no one can do a great job of self-editing. But - I've fixed what I saw, and had intended to do so before publishing.. but software beign what it is, I didn't get the chance. (rassa-frackin-mumber-jumber) :) outie again.
posted by Someone at 11:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home