pageok
pageok
pageok
Town Officials and Journalists Unclear On Fractions:

Cape Cod Times reports:

[Headline:] Truro zoning decision hinges on single vote

Voters narrowly approved one of four zoning amendments late Tuesday night at the annual town meeting. But town officials were still looking at the exact vote count on that article yesterday.

In a vote of 136 to 70, voters passed a new time limit on how quickly a cottage colony, cabin colony, motel or hotel can be converted to condominiums....

The exact count of the vote — 136 to 70 — had town officials hitting their calculators yesterday. The zoning measure needed a two-thirds vote to pass. A calculation by town accountant Trudy Brazil indicated that 136 votes are two-thirds of 206 total votes, said Town Clerk Cynthia Slade.

Brazil said she used the calculation of .66 multiplied by 206 to obtain the number.

But using .6666 — a more accurate version of two-thirds — the affirmative vote needed to be 137 instead of 136, according to an anonymous caller to town hall and to the Times.

Slade said that she called several of her colleagues to see how they calculate a two-thirds vote, and the answer varied widely. In Provincetown, Town Clerk Doug Johnstone uses .66. But Johnstone said he'd never had a close vote where it might matter.

A spokesman from the Secretary of State's office was not available to comment yesterday.

Slade said she will let the state Attorney General's office decide on the correct count, as part of their normal review of town meeting decisions....

Now let's be careful here, since there are so many problems here that it's easy to miss some. (I assume, by the way, that the article is correct in saying that a two thirds vote is required to pass the amendment, which the Truro Charter seems to confirm.)

1. Voters didn't "narrowly approve[]" the amendment; they narrowly disapproved it. It doesn't matter what the town official says; 136 is not 2/3 of 206. [UPDATE: The reporter e-mails me, in response to a query, "the article is considered to have passed by town meeting. but it will be reviewed (as all general and zoning bylaw articles are) by mass. attorney general before it is enacted." But whatever the town authorities might have said, the voters didn't narrowly approve the amendment — their vote fell short of the legally required 2/3.]

2. The affirmative vote needed isn't 137, since 2/3 of 206 is 137.333..., which means 137 is less than 2/3 of 206. The affirmative vote needed is 138.

3. Therefore, the zoning decision didn't "hinge[] on [a] single vote" — even if the one vote had changed, so the total would be 137 to 69, still not 2/3. To pass with 206 people voting, two voters would have had to switch sides.

4. I realize this item is a bit pedantic, but .6666 isn't a more accurate version of two-thirds. There is only one 2/3, not multiple versions. .6666 is a more accurate approximation to 2/3 than is .66.

5. If you need to calculate 2/3 on a calculator, there's no need to choose an approximation of two-thirds — you can just multiply by 2 and divide by 3.

6. But beyond this, who needs "an anonymous caller to town hall and to the Times," or even a calculator here? If you need 2/3 ayes (and assuming, as the article does, that this is 2/3 of those who cast a vote, not 2/3 of those present), then the only question is whether there are at least twice as many ayes as nays. 136 is less than two times 70, so 136 is less than 2/3 of the total.

7. It's not just one town, but two! And the answers in different towns "varied widely," so who knows what else is going on there?

8. They need the state Attorney General's office to multiply 2/3 in Massachusetts.

9. Finally, the best part — this was supposedly done by the town's accountant. Hey, a lawyer I could understand, but shouldn't the accountant be the one person who knows better?

Thanks to Adam Bonin for the pointer.

Bruce:
Your point 6 is the easiest way to figure a 2/3 majority -- I'm surprised people who count votes for a living haven't latched onto that.
4.30.2009 1:40pm
Town Clerk:
I understood that there would be no math.
4.30.2009 1:44pm
JP22 (mail) (www):
I can't tell what lesson to draw from this without knowing the ages and educational backgrounds of the people involved. ;-)
4.30.2009 1:46pm
Losantiville:
So I'm writing the Operating, Maintenance, and Repair manuals for HEMETTs at Oshkosh some years ago.

In order to repair the fan clutch, one might have to calculate the appropriate thickness of a shim. So I directed the mechanic to take a particular measurement, divide it by half, and then look the result up on a table to find the right shim.

The Sergeant who was in charge of testing the manuals said, "If you want the mechanics to divide by 2 you have to include a calculator in the required tool kit."

We decided to double the table ranges instead.
4.30.2009 1:46pm
bellisaurius (mail):
Does this open up the possibility that people in the midwest and south can poke fun of those simpletons in new england who can't do basic math?

As an aside, I like point 6. I'm good at math, but every so often someone comes up with an incredibly simple, and glaringly obvious factoring that makes me feel a bit more humble.
4.30.2009 1:48pm
DangerMouse:
News Flash: Government full of idiots. Water is wet. Sky is blue. Film at 11.
4.30.2009 1:48pm
rosetta's stones:
8. They need the state Attorney General's office to multiply 2/3 in Massachusetts.

You rascal!
4.30.2009 1:48pm
DennisN (mail):
@ Losantiville:


I directed the mechanic to take a particular measurement, divide it by half,


IOW, you directed him to multiply by two.
4.30.2009 1:49pm
Cityduck (mail):
Hey! You're thanking a front-poster at DailyKos! What's up with that?
4.30.2009 1:54pm
CMH:
Why anybody is figuring out the number of votes needed to pass is beyond me. I (or a Fifth grader, either one really) would simply figure out the percentage of the ayes (136/207=.6570), realize that it's less than any approximation of 2/3 being discussed, and be done with it.


Does this open up the possibility that people in the midwest and south can poke fun of those simpletons in new england who can't do basic math?


Yes, yes it does. I've already started.
4.30.2009 2:04pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
What was interesting to me is that I could tell that they were wrong without actually thinking about it. I found that I had doubled 70 to 140, and 136 is less than 140. It took longer to figure out what I had done than to actually do it.

I find myself doing this sort of thing a lot these days. It may be because my mind is somewhat mathematical, but not mathematical enough to do anything interesting in my head.

Of course, the multiplying by two and dividing by three gives the answer that two people would have had to change their votes, which my calculation really didn't do for me.
4.30.2009 2:06pm
Yankev (mail):

If you need to calculate 2/3 on a calculator, there's no need to choose an approximation of two-thirds — you can just multiply by 2 and divide by 3.
Oddly enough, you can do the same with pencil and paper, as many of us learned to do up through the early 1960s. Then the schools replaced arithmetic with the new math.

Anyone who went to school after that had no hope until Texas Instruments introduced the portable calculator some 10 years later. Tom Lehrer wrote a song about it, and Losantiville described the sad results.

So thank you to my teachers for grades 3 through 5, Mrs. Ott, Miss Hurwitz and Mrs. Monson (I hope I spelled that one right, it's been a while), and to my parents for not letting me skip my homework.
4.30.2009 2:15pm
snark 57:
Apparently, 67% of the town's leaders can't do math, and the other half aren't so great, either.
4.30.2009 2:16pm
MLS:
All this matter does is prove the point that "4 out of 3 politicians have trouble with fractions".
4.30.2009 2:18pm
jviss (mail):
Hey, I went to the Cape Cod Times, posted a comment, and credited you-all.
4.30.2009 2:22pm
Adam B. (www):
Hey! You're thanking a front-poster at DailyKos! What's up with that?
Yeah, how dare ... oh, wait. That's me, and I've known Prof. Volokh at least since the CYBERIA-L days, and, gosh, your name looks familiar too ...

Anyway, here's the part I'm stuck on:

If you need 2/3 ayes (and assuming, as the article does, that this is 2/3 of those who cast a vote, not 2/3 of those present), then the only question is whether there are at least twice as many ayes as nays. 136 is less than two times 70, so 136 is less than 2/3 of the total.
138 is also less than twice-70, yet it *is* greater than two-thirds of 206 total voters -- but is not more than twice the number of votes against. So there's a part of my brain that wants 140 to be the correct answer, but that requires there to be more voters.
4.30.2009 2:24pm
DavidBak (www):
Point #6 is how I quickly did it in my head. But ... consider typing the following into google:

206 * 2 / 3

Gives you the answer right off.
4.30.2009 2:30pm
guest:
Adam B. -- if there were 138 yes votes, there would only be 68 no votes, not 70.
4.30.2009 2:31pm
cboldt (mail):
-- figure out the percentage of the ayes (136/207=.6570) --
.
LOL. How's your addition? Want a calculator for that?
4.30.2009 2:31pm
Adam B. (www):
guest: Ah. Duh. Thank you. I obviously quit Mathletics too soon.
4.30.2009 2:32pm
Fedya (www):
Adam B. wrote:
138 is also less than twice-70, yet it *is* greater than two-thirds of 206 total voters

If there are 138 ayes and 70 nays, there are 208 votes total, not 206. 138/208 ~= 66.35%.
4.30.2009 2:35pm
ShelbyC:
Maybe we should ask Larry Summers what the problem is?
4.30.2009 2:39pm
Mike S.:
For a 2/3's vote you need at least twice as many ayes as nays. (Or nays plus abstentions if it is 2/3 of those present and voting)
4.30.2009 2:40pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
So what's the problem here? Any first-year law student soon learns that the legal definition of various terms hardly resembles their real-world definitions. So a statutory (or caselaw) definition of 2/3 = .66 should surprise no one.

Remember that the Indiana state legislature once tried to set pi equal to a rational number.
4.30.2009 2:42pm
cboldt (mail):
Bruce Hayden has the most elegant and easiest solution. In order to cross the 2/3 threshold, the number of AYE votes has to more than double the number of NAY votes. Just "times two" the nays, it that meets the AYES, the vote is divided at EXACTLY the 2/3rds line. If double the NAYS can't meet the AYES, the AYESs have more than 2/3rds. If double the NAYS beats the AYES, the AYES lose.
.
Said another way, just weight each NAY vote double, and do a direct comparison. Now, if "greater than less than" poses a problem, we're in politician territory.
4.30.2009 2:43pm
RichC:
And to answer one of EV's assumptions, in MA the denominator for this is number of votes cast, not number of people present.

This is pretty lame on Truro's part. As a Town Meeting member in my town (MA towns can either be "open" (any registered voter can debate and vote) or "representative" (any registered voter can debate, but only elected Town Meeting members (there are between 50 and 300 of them, depending on the town) can vote)) the Moderator and Clerk always use the 2:1 rule when declaring whether a 2/3rds vote passes or fails. And our town always lists such an item as "defeated" when it fails to get 2/3rds, even if it gets a simple majority.
4.30.2009 2:43pm
ChrisTS (mail):
THe fact that this occurred in a small New England town is slainet: at least two of those 70 voted as they did to make sure it was really democracy at work.
4.30.2009 2:46pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
I'm going to send this article to my children who are in three different grades, but all studying fractions for the upcoming MCAS math exams (that's M as in Massachusetts.)

The scientists and engineers where I work were having an argument over whether 0.999999.... (infinitely repeating 9s) is approximately 1.0 or is 1.0. (Hint, if 9x = 9, what does x equal? 10x - x = 9x. No disappearing gnome tricks, it's real.)

But sheesh, hadn't anyone at the town meeting ever seen a puzzle involving bags of coins and balance scales?
4.30.2009 3:14pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Tony Tutins: If you can point me to a statutory or caselaw definition of 2/3 being equal to .66, I'd be happy to mock that, too, though I agree that then I'd have to acquit the city officials of the charges. But I'm unaware of any such statutory or caselaw definition, and the newspaper article doesn't suggest that there is one, either.

The .66 practice sounds like just a local custom, and I know of no legal rule that would allow city officials to implement a city charter's express reference to "two-thirds vote" by using .66 instead.
4.30.2009 3:16pm
Vermando (mail) (www):
That was pretty hilarious - I really enjoyed that. Many thanks.
4.30.2009 3:25pm
dmv (mail):
Further evidence that town meetings should be nationalized.
4.30.2009 3:27pm
ChrisIowa (mail):

If you need to calculate 2/3 on a calculator, there's no need to choose an approximation of two-thirds — you can just multiply by 2 and divide by 3.

Oddly enough, you can do the same with pencil and paper, as many of us learned to do up through the early 1960s.

Some of us used chalk and slate.
4.30.2009 3:30pm
pete (mail) (www):
I also used method number 6 to figure it out when reading the story.

The two thirds majority was actually pretty relevant when the town I grew up in wanted to buid a new high school. The bond needed to pass with 2/3's of the vote and repeatedly came up just shy of that in the 65 - 66.6 % range and it took a couple of elections to get to two thirds + 1. A few years after the bond passed California voters passed proposition 39 to reduce the 2/3rds majority to a 55% majority when voting for local school bonds.
4.30.2009 3:30pm
Edward A. Hoffman (mail):
This is the inevitable result of a ban on weapons of math instruction.
4.30.2009 3:31pm
bellisaurius (mail):
I wonder if this is also a case study of the importance of significant digits. If I only had 98 people, .67 (Not .66. Hey, ya gotta round in the correct direction here) is a solid estimation of 2/3's.

However, once the number of significant digits goes to three, then .667 becomes more appropriate four digits is 0.6667 and so on...
4.30.2009 3:31pm
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb :
This seems like a good time to point out my favorite math fact -- that .999.... ("point nine repeating") actually equals one.

They are one and the same, and the thing they are the same as is... one.

It's hardly a proof (although a proof isn't that hard), but consider that 2/3 = 6/9 = .666....

7/9 = .777....

8/9 = .888....

9/9 = ?
4.30.2009 3:32pm
ShelbyC:

It's hardly a proof (although a proof isn't that hard), but consider that 2/3 = 6/9 = .666....

7/9 = .777....

8/9 = .888....

9/9 = ?



or, 1/3 = .3333... * 3 = .999... = 1.
4.30.2009 3:41pm
Frog Leg (mail):
Nitpick, but is a town accountant a "politician?" [Good point, changed it, thanks. -EV]
4.30.2009 3:47pm
JimZiegler (mail):
The proof is a given by David above:

10x-x=9x i.e.

10x -> 9.9999999.......
x -> .9999999.......
as can be readily seen, there is exactly one "9" on the lower line for each "9" on the upper line, so when you subtract, you get
10x-x -> 9.00000000.......
or
9x = 9
so x = 1

the same method works for any infinitely repeating fraction, so, e.g.

x -> .707707..... where the 707 repeats forever
1000x -> 707.707707.....

so 999x = 707

so x = 707/999 a fraction in (I think) reduced form...
4.30.2009 3:48pm
Yankev (mail):

LOL. How's your addition? Want a calculator for that?

Anbody remember when Walt Kelly had a series of cartoons in Pogo dealing with this very issue? Try googling "SNORBERT ZANGOX over in Waycross" or go to http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1994/1994AXG.html
4.30.2009 4:07pm
dew:
Of course, another possible explanation is that the news reporter got some bits wrong. While I like the Cape Cod Times (I used to spend a lot of time on the cape), they are a typical local/regional paper with sometimes less than correct reporting.

If the whole article is correct it would be as silly as the most insulting comments claim - it's not like 2/3 votes in Massachusetts town meetings are rare; any bonds, zoning bylaw changes, transfers from Stabilization (a form of municipal savings), tax limit (prop 2.5) overrides, as well as a number of less common votes are all 2/3 vote to pass, not a simple majority.

I will test the local town clerk to see if she can get it right (I suspect she will, but it should be fun). The town I live in never needed an accountant to add votes up and do simple math; we do use someone from the town's Finance Committee to double check and certify the math of the town clerk.

Oddly enough, you can do the same with pencil and paper, as many of us learned to do up through the early 1960s. Then the schools replaced arithmetic with the new math. Anyone who went to school after that had no hope

Oddly enough, I went to elementary school in the early 70s, didn't have any access to electronic calculators until maybe the 8th grade, and would have had no problem getting the correct answer by the 6th grade at the latest.

Nitpick, but is a town accountant a "politician?"

In MA, they are a hired employee, at least in every town I know of.
4.30.2009 4:16pm
lindaseebach (mail):
I worked at a California paper where the city editor -- late at night, after the edit page editor (me) had gone home -- tried to calculate 2/3 on a close school-bond vote and got approve/disapprove wrong (for the same reason as Adam B. above, I think). Wrong as in page 1 banner headline wrong.

To those who proffered an argument for why 1 = .999..., you do know that your argument requires that you first prove that addition/subtraction are well-defined for the class of infinite series to which .999... belongs?
4.30.2009 4:16pm
Splunge:
I'm vaguely reminded of an Isaac Asimov story in which, at some point in the future, an oddball technician on his time off invents a new way of calculating the result of multiplying two numbers which does not involve asking the nearest talking computer. Since it involves making marks on paper according to a rigid set of rules with a stick of graphite encased in wood, he calls it "graphitics."

It's weird that anyone would think a plausible decimal approximation to 2/3 is 0.66. Why not 0.6? Or just 1? They're all equally (in)valid, because they're all constructed the same way, by simply dropping digits after the last one you feel like keeping.

I vaguely recall the Mass tax rate being 5%, that is, you take your income and multiply by 0.05 to get your tax. What a shame I didn't think of "approximating" my tax by dropping the second decimal place and hence multiplying my income by 0.0 to get the tax.
4.30.2009 4:45pm
Cornellian (mail):
I usually use #6 for a quick look when I'm calculating those kinds of fractions.

Everyone casting one of those votes ought to be required to read the book "Innumeracy."
4.30.2009 4:53pm
DonBoy (mail) (www):
If I lived there and/or worked for a newspaper there I'd be reviewing every vote since the beginning of time looking for others that were declared incorrectly.
4.30.2009 4:57pm
Spartacus (www):
To those who proffered an argument for why 1 = .999..., you do know that your argument requires that you first prove that addition/subtraction are well-defined for the class of infinite series to which .999... belongs?

They are well defined due to the uniform convergence of Cauchy sequences, or something like that (the finite partial sums of an infinte series form a Cauchy (and therefore uniformly convergent) sequence. You can prove all this from the definitions of the terms involved, and it all becomes quite tautological
4.30.2009 5:10pm
Frog Leg (mail):
To increase the nerd quotient of this thread, I would also point out that 1 does not equal .99999... if one allows for the existence of transfinite numbers.
4.30.2009 5:27pm
Yankev (mail):

I went to elementary school in the early 70s, didn't have any access to electronic calculators until maybe the 8th grade, and would have had no problem getting the correct answer by the 6th grade at the latest.
Glad to hear that the primary schools in your home town did a better job than the ones in mine.
4.30.2009 5:42pm
Beth Macknik:

If you need to calculate 2/3 on a calculator, there's no need to choose an approximation of two-thirds — you can just multiply by 2 and divide by 3.



While it is unlikely to significantly alter the outcome, doing this will still result in using an approximation of two-thirds. Calculators are usually working with approximations of the non-integer numbers because of the way that their math libraries work. In this case, the calculator would give a better approximation than the accountant. But still an approximation.
4.30.2009 5:44pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Beth Macknik: The result will of course still be approximate, but one can yield that final approximation without having to introduce one's own approximation of 2/3 (which ends up being more approximate than the calculator's ultimate approximation).
4.30.2009 5:58pm
Visitor Again:
What was interesting to me is that I could tell that they were wrong without actually thinking about it. I found that I had doubled 70 to 140, and 136 is less than 140. It took longer to figure out what I had done than to actually do it.

I bet you went to elementary school before year dot, whatever it was, like I did.

The .66 practice sounds like just a local custom

Calculated to avoid invoking the devil's number. Wrong result, but a greater evil avoided.
4.30.2009 6:01pm
Barbara Skolaut (mail):
I'm a hair's breadth away from being disnumeric, and even I think this is pathetic.

I can't tell you how happy I am that I went to school before calculators came along.
4.30.2009 6:01pm
Splunge:
Beth Macknik, you're perhaps neglecting the distinction between an approximation of the final result and an approximation of an intermediate calculation. As a rule, the latter leads to greater error.

Put it this way. Suppose the task is to compute 2/3 of the total vote in 10 precincts, not just 1. A town clerk or other innumerate could imagine doing it two ways:

(1) Add all the votes, multiply by 0.67, round to the nearest vote.

(2) Multiply each precinct's vote by 0.67, round to the nearest vote, add them up.

Hopefully it's obvious (2) gives the more inaccurate answer. So there is an important distinction between approximating 2/3 and approximating the result of multiplying a certain number by 2/3.
4.30.2009 6:21pm
ShelbyC:
Splunge:

Beth Macknik, you're perhaps neglecting the distinction between an approximation of the final result and an approximation of an intermediate calculation. As a rule, the latter leads to greater error.


Nitpicking, both your examples show aproxamation of an intermediate calculation. The way to aproxamate only the final result is to add the votes up, multiply by 2, then divide by 3.
4.30.2009 7:04pm
Thelonious:

@Frogleg
To increase the nerd quotient of this thread, I would also point out that 1 does not equal .99999... if one allows for the existence of transfinite numbers.



It's been some years, but I do believe that even allowing transfinite numbers (and I suspect you mean infinitesimals, since these aren't transfinite - they're both certainly less than 1.1) the equation follows. The limit of the series 0.9, 0.99, 0.999,... is 1.0
4.30.2009 7:37pm
Can't find a good name:
This reminds me of the notorious 19th century bill in Indiana which was based on the assumption that pi equals exactly 3.2. The apparent level of innumeracy in the Provincetown government is disturbing.
4.30.2009 8:28pm
ReaderY:
If there had been a previous vote where something passed with .66 votes that wouldn't pass with .6666, there'd be an excellent argument that "2/3" actually means .66 in this context.

Courts give abstract laws and principles concrete frameworks all the time, and it's not uncommon that when later courts apply these decision frameworks they sometimes reach results that seem to be in conflict with the plan meeting of these abstract principle taken alone, without interpretive precendents.

If "gold and silver coin" can include fiat paper money, surely one can't complain that letting "2/3" include .66 can represent a problem. It seems to me that if anything .66 has a much closer logical relationship to 2/3 -- it specifies a number of decimal places to use when using a calculator, which is what most people use, and one might as well specify some number of decimal places -- than "gold and silver coin" does to contemporary "legal tender" federal reserve notes.
4.30.2009 9:21pm
Doctor:
Simplest answer is divide 206 by 3, multiply answer by 2 and you come up with a true 2/3 of the vote. Considering the number is 137.333, the vote count must be bumped to the next whole number to achieve the 2/3s since there is no such thing as a fraction of a vote. 138 votes were needed and they lost.
4.30.2009 9:50pm
BGates:
Why not 0.6? Or just 1? They're all equally (in)valid, because they're all constructed the same way, by simply dropping digits after the last one you feel like keeping.

The second example of that construction works only for exceptionally small values of 1. Like 0.
4.30.2009 10:13pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and not being sure whether the vote has achieved the required 2/3.

Nick
4.30.2009 10:26pm
Frank Snyder (mail):

If you can point me to a statutory or caselaw definition of 2/3 being equal to .66, I'd be happy to mock that, too,


I can't do that, but there's an old Oregon case that holds that horse meat scrap that tests at 49.5 percent protein satisfies a contract clause that requires "not less than 50 percent" protein. I don't have the cite handy, but I discuss it in an article at 68 Ohio State L.J. 2 (2007).
4.30.2009 11:33pm
Gene Ewald (mail):
Ho Hum, it seems as though the Cape is beyond "Left" and has become "Left Behind".

Or was this one of those "I need an answer now and don't have time to think" situations that we've all experienced?

No, sadly, not the case when you decide to ask for help.
5.1.2009 9:06am
Stephen F. (mail) (www):
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and not being sure whether the vote has achieved the required 2/3.

Well if we let 2/3 = .67, then in your example the wolves would need at least 2.01 votes to eat the sheep. So unless the sheep either had a death wish or abstained from voting, a sheep is legally safe from being eaten by two wolves in Massachusetts.
5.2.2009 8:39pm
John McClelland, Roosevelt University journalism faculty (mail):
It is appalling that this discussion went on for more than one minute flat at the meeting itself. But since it has...

The "two-thirds" in the law does not mean some decimal approximation. It means *2 and /3. (or, equally, /3 and *2)

Most cell phones have a calculator, so even the pencil-challenged could have done it on the spot.

The result of 206*(2/3) is 137.3, so 137 is less than 2/3 and the required vote is 138. Period.

All the endless discussions of decimal near-equivalents could be useful in some other topic, but not here.

The in-my-head "reality check" comments, however, deserve another bit of attention: The 70-140 balance is no help because it would apply correctly only with 210 total votes.
5.4.2009 10:11am
vinnie (mail):
The in-my-head "reality check" comments, however, deserve another bit of attention: The 70-140 balance is no help because it would apply correctly only with 210 total votes.
0 It is a relationship, If 70 votes are no you must have AT LEAST 140 votes in favor to pass. 70/206<70/210<=2/3
5.4.2009 12:54pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.