Report Inappropriate Comments

To offer supporting information to CrickeeRaven, he is speaking about the law of large numbers, a statistical theorem that we statisticians (I am a statistician by trade) use daily in our research findings. Its a theory on probability and all political polls imply voting results based on this theory. Ask Joe Fleming, Political Analyst for WPRI and he will confirm.

The problem with RC's process is that he has based his campaigning on the inverse theorem, called Gambler's Fallacy, in which people assume that if they create a certain outcome enough times, the inverse HAS to come true; much like his hopes of becoming Mayor.

The time has come to retire this banter Rick. Probability, and the general public, are consistently dictating an unfavorable result for your campaign. Its stats man...

OH, and for everyone's edification, with a voting population of 20,294 and a turnout of 10,397, the election had an overall margin of error of .64%

Don't believe me?

Here's the formula:

x = Z(c/100)2r(100-r)

n = N x/((N-1)E2 + x)

E = Sqrt[(N - n)x/n(N-1)]

N= Population size

n= Sample Size

Z(c/100)= Critical value for the confidence level (95% confidence in my calculation)

E= Margin of error

r= the sub sample size you are factoring

In layman's terms, this means that with the election results, and subsequent margin of loss you had, there is a 95% chance those margins would replicate if 100% of the people voted and would fluctuate by .64% plus/minus ( about 75 votes either way). That's how the law of large numbers works.

NUMBERS! They're really don't lie.

P.S- When you look at the 2016 poll positions in numerical order, 2nd in a two person race is last place. And losing the primary by almost 4:1 isn't much to brag about:

Joseph J. Solomon* (DEM) 6776 65.2%

Richard C. Corrente (DEM) 1835 17.6%

Gerald Carbone (DEM) 1579 15.2%

Vincent M. Ferla (DEM) 207 2.0%

Best of luck on your future campaigning. You're definitely going to need it.