International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Smacking Petition’

The Smacking Petition – think we’ll make it?

I dunno, it might be close! From Family First.

The organisers originally had a shortfall of 18,027 signatures after the audit of the original 324,216 signatures submitted in April. However, since then, more than 50,000 signatures have been collected. These will be submitted before the deadline of the end of the month.

No Plot to Avoid Referendum – Just More Slander

No Right Turn performs a public service and explains to all us simpletons how the Government Statistician’s numbers appeared to be so wrong.

The Government Statistician checked 29,501, and found that 25,754 (87.3%) were valid. Multiply that proportion by the 324,511 and you get 283,294 – just 1,733 signatures short of the number required. So why does the Government Statistician say they need 18,000 more signatures? An evil plot to subvert god’s will and prevent spanking through Satanic statistics?

No. Instead, its about the duplicates. The Government Statistician found 160 multiple signatures in the sample – 158 duplicates and 2 triplicates. The sample was 1/11th of the total, so this suggests that there will be a further 160 x 10 = 1,600 replicates in the sample where the other match is in the rest of the population – and therefore a further 1,600 x 10 hidden replicates in the population as a whole. Which pretty clearly gets us in the right ballpark. The problem is slightly more complicated than that, since signatures can be both invalid and duplicated; statisticians have a number of different ways of estimating this, but that’s about the stage I start seeing tentacles.

In other words, the sample only checked for duplicates within itself – it did not check for duplicates between the sample and the general survey. So the rate is actually much higher than that.

The important thing is that this is not a satanic statistical plot, but a problem of childbeaters being idiots who think that signing a petition multiple times helps their cause. We can only hope that they don’t think the same about voting.

And once again the 80% of the population that supports reasonable parenting being allowed are treated to a torrent of abuse by those who think they’re better people.

Given Bob showed his working, I don’t think it is unreasonable to question the statistics. No one called this a “satanic plot”, but plenty were wondering if it were a political one.

He might also feel free to show us a petition where “idiots” never signed twice? A year is a long time to remember whether you’ve signed something that you don’t spend all your time thinking about!

I wonder if IS signed the other petition, which called for the government to look into real reasons behind child abuse?

HT: Big News

TV3 – Objective Journalism out the Window on Smacking

Was watching TV3 at 7:30, and their news updated reported that the smacking petition had “failed” because “people cheated by signing more than once”.

Quite aside from the fact that the petition has not failed, it paints those who signed as dishonest where reality is that all petitions have this.

The real story here is very, very different. From the Kiwi Party email:

The Government’s Statistician asked for a sample size of 1/11th to be carefully checked. That turned out to be 29,501 signatures out of the total count of 324,511. Of those signatures the Electoral Enrolment Centre ascertained that 25,754 where valid.

Accordingly, assuming that the sample was representative of the whole, the number of valid signatures should have been; 25,754 x 11 which equals 283,294. The number required is 285,027 so this indicates a shortfall of just 1,733 signatures!

However the Government’s Statistician has said that his best estimate is just 267,000 or a shortfall of 18,027; 16,294 greater than the 1/11th sample would indicate.
I think the 283,294 people who, based on the sample, validly signed the petition, deserve an explanation from the Government’s Statistician of that discrepancy. Why has he decided that the signatures of 16,294 people who are validly enrolled on the electoral roll are to be set aside?

Why indeed.

Tag Cloud