Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > 
> >> >   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of
> >> >   12
> >> > random people. *That* would be absurd.
> > 
> >> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential
> >> elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.
> > 
> >   That's not what I meant, and you know it.

> Don't presume to tell me what I know and what I don't, please.

  So you really didn't understand what I meant?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> > random people. *That* would be absurd.

> That's not very absurd at all, unless the elections were really close, 
> asking 12 totally random people would probably give the same result as 
> asking the whole population.  Raise that number to just 30 or 50 people and 
> you'd almost certainly get the same result every time.  If you're good at 
> stats you can work out the figures.

  Why does it seem so damn hard to understand what I am talking about?

  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people. I don't mean 100 million people
vote one way and 100000012 people vote the other way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
> > judge?

> A lone judge is the alternative.

  Thus not what I was talking about.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people. 

That's what I meant too.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, have you ever served on a jury?

  Nope. There's no such thing here.

>  In Finland (going from 
> memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong), what sort of criminal justice 
> (and civil justice, for that matter) system is used?

  If I'm not completely msitaken, usually a judge and a panel of three
so-called lay judges. In more difficult cases the panel may be expanded
with one or two experts.

  The lay judges are elected by the city council (or something like that,
I'm not completely sure) in 4-year terms.

  In very trivial cases simpler setups may be used.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people. 

> That's what I meant too.

  In which country is the total amount of votes 12?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> That's what I meant too.
> 
>  In which country is the total amount of votes 12?

Dunno, you suggested it!

Post a reply to this message

4816d039@news.povray.org...
> That's not very absurd at all, unless the elections were really close, 
> asking 12 totally random people would probably give the same result as 
> asking the whole population.  Raise that number to just 30 or 50 people 
> and you'd almost certainly get the same result every time.  If you're good 
> at stats you can work out the figures.

Actually no. A sample of 12 people is completely useless for surveying a 
large population (>1000). Typically, for a national population, a minimum 
size is 1000 (confidence interval of 3 and confidence level of 95%), so that 
you're 95% sure that the actual result lies between x-3 and x+3 where x is 
your survey result.  That's already a large interval (47-53 for a close 
election) and you'll need more for a smaller confidence interval (2500 for a 
CI of 2). And that's assuming that your sample is truly random and not 
biaised in some way, which is the big problem here since people aren't lab 
rats.
A sample of 12 would give an confidence interval of 30, i.e. the true answer 
will be between x-30 and x+30. Not very useful... Of course this never 
prevented people from deriving large trends from what their 12-people-large 
circle of acquaintances, including themselves + mom and dad, think or do ;)
Not that rounding up 1000 people for a single jury duty would be much 
practical, and the 12-people jury thing isn't meant to be a survey anyway.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:02:35 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
>> > judge?
> 
>> A lone judge is the alternative.
> 
>   Thus not what I was talking about.

Well, in the US, that's the choice - a jury, or you can leave it up to 
the judge, who will apply his expertise in law and combine that with 
expertise from experts called to testify.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:00:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote
>> >> >   of 12
>> >> > random people. *That* would be absurd.
>> > 
>> >> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US
>> >> presidential elections, and every possibility that will continue in
>> >> this one.
>> > 
>> >   That's not what I meant, and you know it.
> 
>> Don't presume to tell me what I know and what I don't, please.
> 
>   So you really didn't understand what I meant?

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?  As I said, I was making a point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message