Is TOTV statistically typical of participation?

[Guest]

I would guess, even allowing a Paredo comparison (the old 80-20 rules), that TOTV is fairly representative of most groups and general populations with USA standard of living.

It is the real crux of why we the people are not getting what most of us expect out of Washington. An example? It was reported in various stories the last few days (subject health care reform) that over 83% of American polled were satisfied with their current health care. If this were really true and if 80% of that 83% would let their representatives and POTUS know to leave it alone and don't spend over a trillion $$$ for something we don't need.

Until we, the minority that participate, there will always be the dregs being re-elected and pitiful legislation and waste of our tax dollars and deterioration of our values.

Just like on TOTV, the minority....those of us willing to stand and be counted...are doomed by the silent majority.

And that is the shame of all of the ills most of us dislike or disapprove.

btk

[Guest]

I would guess, even allowing a Paredo comparison (the old 80-20 rules), that TOTV is fairly representative of most groups and general populations with USA standard of living.

It is the real crux of why we the people are not getting what most of us expect out of Washington. An example? It was reported in various stories the last few days (subject health care reform) that over 83% of American polled were satisfied with their current health care. If this were really true and if 80% of that 83% would let their representatives and POTUS know to leave it alone and don't spend over a trillion $$$ for something we don't need.

Until we, the minority that participate, there will always be the dregs being re-elected and pitiful legislation and waste of our tax dollars and deterioration of our values.

Just like on TOTV, the minority....those of us willing to stand and be counted...are doomed by the silent majority.

And that is the shame of all of the ills most of us dislike or disapprove.

btk

Propaganda ......Is alive and well. White house says they are going to have a "discussion" on health care. A TV station promptly moves into the residence. Do we get both sides of the issue? Obama occupies 45 minutes of the allotted time to filibuster the issues. Fair????????
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090625043708.aspx

[Guest]

I don't think a bunch of retirees and almost retirees are 80% of the population. Of course people that aren't paying huge premiums for their health insurance and have it are satisfied.

[Guest]

Just because we (the majority) are currently satisfied with our coverage doesn't mean that the system doesn't need to keep pace with changes.

Most people were 'satisfied' with their horse but transportation people were eying something completely different - automobiles! Personally I'm glad they didn't listen to the 80%

This is an absurd compassion of course but all products and systems evolve. 20 years from now we may be saying "thank god they alerted the system back in 2010 - this is so much better".

20 years ago retirement communities didn't look (or act) like TV but someone had a different concept. And again, at the time, it may have filled only a niche in the retirement spectrum but they had vision.

You just never know.

[Guest]

Just because we (the majority) are currently satisfied with our coverage doesn't mean that the system doesn't need to keep pace with changes.

Most people were 'satisfied' with their horse but transportation people were eying something completely different - automobiles! Personally I'm glad they didn't listen to the 80%

This is an absurd compassion of course but all products and systems evolve. 20 years from now we may be saying "thank god they alerted the system back in 2010 - this is so much better".

20 years ago retirement communities didn't look (or act) like TV but someone had a different concept. And again, at the time, it may have filled only a niche in the retirement spectrum but they had vision.

You just never know.

For every ying there is a yang. I can remember doctors doing "house calls". You didn't even have to leave your house and one telephone call from a real operator would have the doctor at your home in a few minutes.
For twenty years after people remembered house calls and thought the new way was inferior. Sure the new way was more "efficient" but was it really better?
I am currently trying to read through the book Leisureville, The author has visited alot of older retirement communities. Some of them aren't faring very well. People wonder what will happen when the boomers come and go.
Technology...You go places and people don't look at you because they are too busy texting or talking into cell phones. How has that made our quality of life better? We had a big train wreck in Boston a few weeks ago because the driver was texting his girlfriend.( well it was a girl who was switching over to be a boy and was calling his/her girlfriend...another modern phenomenon... not that there's anything wrong with that)
I don't know where I was going with this.....oh yea..changes. Are they always better????:shrug:

[Guest]

...It was reported in various stories the last few days (subject health care reform) that over 83% of American polled were satisfied with their current health care. If this were really true and if 80% of that 83% would let their representatives and POTUS know to leave it alone and don't spend over a trillion $$$ for something we don't need.
Yes, Billie, but that was only one question in a fairly extensive poll. The other questions in the same poll had surprising results.
Most Americans who have health insurance are fairly happy with the cost and quality of their own care, but perceptions of the country’s health care in general are much more negative. There are large differences in satisfaction with Americans’ own health care (77% of the people are quite satisfied with their own helath care situation) and health care for the country at large (only 48% think the healthcre system as a whole is OK), with the public generally negative about the system overall but positive about their own situation.
Many Americans think the government would do better than private insurance companies on two important measures: 50% think the government would be better at providing medical coverage (up from 30% in 2007), and 59% think the government would be at better holding down costs (up from 47% in 2007).
When presented with the option of a government-administered health insurance plan something like Medicare to compete with private health insurance companies, 72% are in favor and just 20% oppose. Even 50% of Republicans favor the idea that the government would do better in managing healthcare than insurance companies.
57% of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans would have health insurance they can’t lose--a percentage that has not changed much over the years.
Your presentation of the answer to only one question in the poll is a little misleading. Take a look at the entire CBS/New York Times poll conducted less than a week ago at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSPOLL_June09a_health_care.pdf?tag=contentMain;co ntentBody

[Guest]

CBS and Times polls....Give me a break...Mainstream media polls aren't worth the paper their written on. Everybody knows that they can skew the results by asking politically loaded questions....

[Guest]

Paredo's law (simplified is the 80-20 rule)...20 % do all the work for events/things to happen.....it applies to most issues/subjects with a more or less specific number conformance.

The subject of the thread was my observation that TOTV conforms to the model in that very few participate actively (meaning responding, debating, arguing, joke telling, etc, etc compared to the several thousand members.

I chose a bad example to quote as it became the fodder for discussion VS the subject of participation and the silent majority.

I would like to think there is some enticement some day to inspire the majority to participate in the running of this country.

One would think losing culture and core values and basic freedoms sufficient. Apparently not.

How about a risk free (I hope) example; wouldn't TOTV and specifically this forum increase significantly in value and substance if the "active" (not read only) was double the number of today's participants?

We are obviously a crisis oriented society....and then selectively at that. Because if the crisis does not affect or involve or threaten the individual, they are most likely not inclined to be involved in any manner.
This behavior is very noteable at times like 9/11...until the masses reach the conclusion it is not or may not be in their back yard.

I would like to see an appropriate response from we the people to help work through the very issues that will EVENTUALLY be in their back yard...energy independence, a nuclear blast on US soil and yes even health care.

Unfortunately, history and statistics would bear proof....the masses will not stand and be counted!

btk

[Guest]

According to Wikipedia, it's Pareto's principle


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

[Guest]

I think most in these polls are looking for a free ride.What happened to get off your ass and work for it? Thats what I was taught by my parents and did

[Guest]

There are all kinds of polls quoted in both the print and broadcast media these days. To my knowledge, very few of them are intentionally designed to arrive at a particular answer. The polls sponsored by political candidates or parties might be good examples of some that might be a bit self-serving. I don't trust any of them at all.

There would be little purpose, it seems to me, for well-known news organizations--in this case the New York Times and CBS--to purposely design poll questions and a sampling technique to arrive at answers they desire. Maybe I'm too trusting, but why would they do that? There are all kinds of professional pollsters, statisticians and academics that would be all over such poll sponsors or those they hire to design and conduct the polls with criticism of their apparent intent and the inaccuracies that would result from a poorly-designed survey or sample.

I haven't read any such criticisms of any of the myriad of polls presented and discussed on various media outlets. In fact, for the most part the results of the polls are all reasonable comparable--within the standard error they assign to their results, of course.

What's tough, of course, is when a poll taker is trying to determine who might win an election, as an example, and various polls show results around 50%. The standard error alone can make polls of close election races difficult to interpret or believe. But in this case--the NYT/CBS poll on healthcare of a few days ago--the poll answers to many of the questions weren't anywhere near 50%. Those polled seemed to be presenting consistent answers and ones which probably accurately reflect the feelings of the group being measured by the poll sample.

Of course, another variable of polling is the timing of the poll. An excellent example of the effect of time and new information might be the difference in poll results of the feelings of South Carolina residents regarding their Governor. I'm quite certain that a poll taken two weeks ago would have substantially different results than one taken today. That can also happen as the details of the proposed healthcare plan become known. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "numbers" move around depending on the details of the proposed legislation.

[Guest]

The New York Times like every newspaper or media outlet is usually slanted with the views of it's owner. The Times has no conscience when it comes to leaking military or other pertinent information but when one of it's own became a hostage they were somehow able to keep a secret. Amazing. I would not trust a poll by an organization that has a political agenda. Period.

[Guest]

VK, do you really think the NY Times wouldn't slant a poll? This poll had 38% Democrats, 24% Republicans and 38% Independents. My guess, and I don't know, is tht a good portion of the Independents were Democrats. Another question. How are insurance companies suppose to compete with the government? They have to make a profit. The government doesn't. One more thing. According to John Fund, Congress gets to keep their own plan. What does that tell you?

[Guest]

I would guess, even allowing a Paredo comparison (the old 80-20 rules), that TOTV is fairly representative of most groups and general populations with USA standard of living.

It is the real crux of why we the people are not getting what most of us expect out of Washington. An example? It was reported in various stories the last few days (subject health care reform) that over 83% of American polled were satisfied with their current health care. If this were really true and if 80% of that 83% would let their representatives and POTUS know to leave it alone and don't spend over a trillion $$$ for something we don't need.

Until we, the minority that participate, there will always be the dregs being re-elected and pitiful legislation and waste of our tax dollars and deterioration of our values.

Just like on TOTV, the minority....those of us willing to stand and be counted...are doomed by the silent majority.

And that is the shame of all of the ills most of us dislike or disapprove.

btk

I went back into the archives from a few months before the election. I haven't seen many of their posts since I have been here. I did have some fun reading a few. I like the ones where someone starts provocative thread and sits back and watches the fireworks. Elections bring out the fever in us.

[Guest]

VK, do you really think the NY Times wouldn't slant a poll? This poll had 38% Democrats, 24% Republicans and 38% Independents. My guess, and I don't know, is tht a good portion of the Independents were Democrats. Another question. How are insurance companies suppose to compete with the government? They have to make a profit. The government doesn't. One more thing. According to John Fund, Congress gets to keep their own plan. What does that tell you?

Of course....someone who denies it is just playing the devil's advocate. I have the feeling sometimes that someone here likes to play the crowd a little. Stir the pot and have some fun.:MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

For every ying there is a yang. I can remember doctors doing "house calls". You didn't even have to leave your house and one telephone call from a real operator would have the doctor at your home in a few minutes.
For twenty years after people remembered house calls and thought the new way was inferior. Sure the new way was more "efficient" but was it really better?
I am currently trying to read through the book Leisureville, The author has visited alot of older retirement communities. Some of them aren't faring very well. People wonder what will happen when the boomers come and go.
Technology...You go places and people don't look at you because they are too busy texting or talking into cell phones. How has that made our quality of life better? We had a big train wreck in Boston a few weeks ago because the driver was texting his girlfriend.( well it was a girl who was switching over to be a boy and was calling his/her girlfriend...another modern phenomenon... not that there's anything wrong with that)
I don't know where I was going with this.....oh yea..changes. Are they always better????:shrug:

I don't think you could say this is a hard read? :22yikes:

[Guest]

I don't think you could say this is a hard read? :22yikes:

Could you elaborate????????:undecided::024: