Comments on: GSSC President Calls NROTC Survey “Meaningless”

By: why

why — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:46:17 +0000

does this school talk mad shit about anyone who takes a stand on important issues?

the vote WAS meaningless. someone had to say it. and obviously, the councils will try to cover their asses.

By: Nope

Nope — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:20:52 +0000

Those aren’t the identifiers necessary. See the Bwog comments from a while back. All you needed was the survey ID number, not the identifier at the end. Poor coding on someone’s part.

By: it didn't

it didn't — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:51:16 +0000

http://commentariat.specblogs.com/index.php/2008/12/02/councils-failed-divide-votes-school/

By: that, or

that, or — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:42:10 +0000

It’s even possible that all three schools voted for it, despite the popular vote losing overall. It’s called Simpson’s paradox.

By: Breakdown?

Breakdown? — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:24:49 +0000

How did the votes breakdown by college?

Since this started in SEAS and NROTC would benefit them the most, it seems obvious that we should at least know how SEAS students voted.

Also, with only 39 votes separating yes from now in 3 colleges, it’s possible 2 of the 3 colleges actually voted for NROTC. If it’s a 2-2 tie, that changes a lot. Heck, if we know only 1 college – especially if that 1 college is SEAS – voted for NROTC, that still changes things.

By: it's not

it's not — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:50:37 +0000

It’s for people who voted without selecting either one. The correct term is ‘invalid response’.

By: ...

... — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:17:19 +0000

i think it’s cute that you believe that everyone is here because they have to be.

By: brody SUX

brody SUX — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:05:35 +0000

You’re a douche is harsh but brings up a good point. Brody doesn’t care about GSSC, he only cares about himself. Everybody agress that GSSC is silly with their statements rife with their inferiority complex. I think it’s time for us to have a GS student who understands the undergraduate dynamics to be president. Alfred Davis would do a much better job as President.

By: You're a douche

You're a douche — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:43:58 +0000

I think it’s cute that Brody Berg calls himself “a software industry veteran of 10 years.” If he’s such a hotshot, what’s he doing in a dumping ground of people who couldn’t cut it in the job market?

By: well

well — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:42:45 +0000

brody is the most obnoxious person at columbia

By: correction

correction — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:40:52 +0000

as for my second to last paragraph: I should have said if only 20 more votes were corrected from No to Yes vs the other way around, then the majority would have swung the other way.

By: well then

well then — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:38:51 +0000

to #2: What he means by “decided by 39 votes” is that the difference between Yes and No votes is 39 votes.

Also, to everyone here (and especially #10): while the legitimacy of the GSSC president’s legitimacy and “opinions” may be questionable, his stated facts about the poll are NOT. I feel that the CCSC President’s support of the poll is completely irresponsible. Why?

“If a student attempted to vote multiple times, only the last vote they cast was counted.” …really? The evidence shows that in many cases the SAME LINK was sent to MULTIPLE people. This means that there is a strong potential for many votes NOT TO BE COUNTED. Now, 2000 votes were NOT counted. The vote differential (#NO – #YES) was only 39. Even if a fraction of those 2000 thrown-out votes were real opinions accidentally cast on someone else’s link, there is ample room for the majority to swing the other way if the votes were counted as they should have been. That is, with a secure system that allows one vote per person.

Also, given the opportunity for hacking the system and intentionally voting for someone else, a large number of the “counted” votes may not validly represent the intended vote of the individual. Keep in mind that this is DOUBLY important: correcting each “incorrect” vote takes away one vote from one side and simultaneously adds a vote to the other. This changes the vote DIFFERENTIAL by 2! That means if only 20 (20!) votes were corrected, the majority would swing the other way.

Regardless of whether Berg’s status and participation in this poll’s inception is actually questionable (of which I have no information), all of you should seriously consider the raw statistics and math that he is providing here regardless of his identity.

By: bullshit

bullshit — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:02:18 +0000

Guessing identifiers would have been pretty much impossible. Let’s do some simple stats here: note that each identifier is 24 characters long. Each character can be a digit or letter, which gives 36 different possibilities. This allows for 36^24 ~= 10^37 different identifiers. Now, there were ~6000 different identifiers, which means that the chance of landing on a correct one through each guess is about 10^-34. That is not a big number at all.

By: ...

... — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:45:07 +0000

see: military == annoying.

it follows that: more military == more annoying.

therefore: nrotc == bad.

By: huh

huh — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:35:50 +0000

Columbia Undergrad Student Body Concludes GS Opinion “Meaningless”