PDA

View Full Version : Congressional voting records by astrological sign



blc303
2006-Jun-08, 04:11 AM
This from just in from Wonkette (http://www.wonkette.com/politics/horoscopes/beltway-horoscope-watch-another-reason-to-love-the-post-179063.php).


The Washington Postís Congressional Votes Database is an invaluable resource. It displays votes by the legislatorís party, state, region, gender ó and astrological sign. [my emphisis]

WP Votes Database (Vote 163) (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/163/). Scroll to the bottom and click on astrological sign.

*heavy sigh*

Although on the other hand, great gist for the skeptics mill.

ToSeek
2006-Jun-08, 03:43 PM
Oh, dear ....

sarongsong
2006-Jun-09, 04:04 AM
Ha---first time I've seen astrological signs arranged in alphabetical rather than chronological order, outside a dictionary.
Hmmh---how about a 12-party system?

The Bad Astronomer
2006-Jun-09, 05:21 AM
What.

The.

(*$(*^#$)*$)*&%)&*%.

Is this a WaPo thing? Or something our government does?

Holy cow. I am so getting to the bottom of this.

davidhw
2006-Jun-09, 07:51 AM
is that there's absolutely no consistency in how Senators voted based on their sign. Shouldn't everyone born under the same sign think similarly about similar issues?

I don't know how to say this, but I think ... I think ... there just *might* be something specious about astrology.

:lol:

blc303
2006-Jun-09, 11:35 AM
Davidhw

what's really amusing

is that there's absolutely no consistency in how Senators voted based on their sign. Shouldn't everyone born under the same sign think similarly about similar issues?

That's what i meant when I said

Although on the other hand, great gist for the skeptics mill.

What is interesting though is that the number of Senators/Sign is really weird. (Click on the sign to get the list of who is what). Leo's are really "underrepresented" (pun intended) and Aqurius, Scorpio and Taurus "overrepresented".

I suspect a deeper astrological meaning! See the Republicans really are waging a War on Science (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465046754/sr=8-1/qid=1149852653/ref=sr_1_1/104-3709457-3094305?%5Fencoding=UTF8) and messing with averages. Somebody tell Chris Mooney or Michael Shermer!

NEOWatcher
2006-Jun-09, 12:09 PM
Davidhw
What is interesting though is that the number of Senators/Sign is really weird. (Click on the sign to get the list of who is what). Leo's are really "underrepresented" (pun intended) and Aqurius, Scorpio and Taurus "overrepresented".
Uhmmm, not weird. I'm not sure of the statistics, but the planned pregnencies that I know about have always been timed so that the third trimester is not in the summer. Usually the January to April timeframe.
And I do have vague recollections statistics stated when (I think it was BMV registration) went from last initial to birth date.

What.
The.
(*$(*^#$)*$)*&%)&*%.
Is this a WaPo thing? Or something our government does?
Holy cow. I am so getting to the bottom of this.
This could be interesting. For the BA to nudge close to rule number 3, there might be some real bottom getting.

edit: typo

blc303
2006-Jun-09, 01:10 PM
NEOWatcher


I'm not sure of the statistics, but the planned pregnencies that I know about have always been timed so that the third trimester is not in the summer. Usually the January to April timeframe.

Um... No. August traditionally has the highest rate of birth. (Pre Christmas spooning perhaps?)

A quick spot check
Vital Statistics of the United States 1945 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1945_1.pdf)
Vital Statistics of the United States 1962 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1962_1.pdf) (also with data going back to 1953)
Monthly Vital Statistics Report; Vol. 26, No. 12 Supplement (3/29/78) (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv26_12sacc.pdf) *
National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 50, No. 5 (2/12/2002) (http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations/bridged-race/NationalVitalStatisticsReportsVol50Number05.pdf)

Each shows August having the highest birthrate.

That's what really made me wonder. I still think it's a plot!

*Edit: Added Statistics for 1976 (which interestingly show September as #1 and August as number 2) and typo.

NEOWatcher
2006-Jun-09, 01:32 PM
Each shows August having the highest birthrate.

Well, there you have it... statistics trumps anecdotal evidence any day. :)

That's what really made me wonder. I still think it's a plot!
So now that I am presented with data, you have me convinced that this should be moved to CT. :shhh:
Or; could it be that Aqurius, Scorpio and Taurus are signs that tend to go into politics and Leos tend to be followers. :D

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jun-09, 02:50 PM
Or that the sample is so small that randomness is king.

NEOWatcher
2006-Jun-09, 04:17 PM
Or that the sample is so small that randomness is king.
Or maybe they did the survey at Chuckie Cheese in July :whistle:

The Bad Astronomer
2006-Jun-09, 04:58 PM
With only 100 Senators divided into 12 bins, you expect 8.5 Senators per bin (and if they would only let me choose which ones to cut in half...). If births are random, then the standard deviation you expect in each bin is the square root of the number in the bin. Sqrt(8.5) is roughly 3.

Now, it's not too unlikely to get fluctuations of 3 standard deviations, though 2 is more likely (of course). So you might see as few as 2 Senators in a bin, or as many as 14. In reality, getting no Senators in one astrological sign wouldn't surprise me too much. Unusual, yes; impossible, of course not.

Gillianren
2006-Jun-09, 07:36 PM
Um... No. August traditionally has the highest rate of birth. (Pre Christmas spooning perhaps?)

Ah, but it was specified that we were talking about planned pregnancies! If I were to attempt planning when I were going to have a child, I sure wouldn't pick August. (For one thing, it's the only month of the year when I reliably have plans.) However, I don't think the majority of parents put much thought into it. In fact, my pregnancy was pretty unplanned in every sense of the word.

Tog
2006-Jun-09, 11:11 PM
The times the GF and I have talked about kids, it was pretty much a given that we would try to time the birth for April/May if at all possible. She doesn't want to spend the summer pregnant. I'd hate to have to dash to the hospital during a huge snowstorm. (And freakishly heavy snowfalls are common in Salt Lake/Ogden Utah) Not to mention the fact we were both born in December and having a birthday around Christmas wasn't fun. Get the toys on the 25th and the batteried a few days later. No good outside toys since they all break or get lost waiting for spring...

Yeah, April or May if we have a say in it.

Gillianren
2006-Jun-09, 11:54 PM
Not to mention the fact we were both born in December and having a birthday around Christmas wasn't fun. Get the toys on the 25th and the batteried a few days later. No good outside toys since they all break or get lost waiting for spring...

Oh, and don't forget the "Christmas and birthday presents," which were pretty much invariably worse than what my sisters got for either. (I'm December 6; they're September 9 and 10. Really. And no, they're not twins--I'm the middle child!)

Tog
2006-Jun-10, 01:14 AM
Oh, and don't forget the "Christmas and birthday presents," which were pretty much invariably worse than what my sisters got for either. (I'm December 6; they're September 9 and 10. Really. And no, they're not twins--I'm the middle child!)

Heh, Dec 28 here. I was serious about the toys for Christmas and the batteries for my birthday. On time, three days later.:cry: One year we put off my birthday til April to do outdoor toys. And people I know wonder why holidays mean so little to me. :D

blc303
2006-Jun-12, 03:56 AM
With only 100 Senators divided into 12 bins, you expect 8.5 Senators per bin (and if they would only let me choose which ones to cut in half...). If births are random, then the standard deviation you expect in each bin is the square root of the number in the bin. Sqrt(8.5) is roughly 3.

Now, it's not too unlikely to get fluctuations of 3 standard deviations, though 2 is more likely (of course). So you might see as few as 2 Senators in a bin, or as many as 14. In reality, getting no Senators in one astrological sign wouldn't surprise me too much. Unusual, yes; impossible, of course not.
Actually my comments in that direction were more than tongue in cheek.

But the refutation is much easier. Just click back 'up' the heirarchy and check the stats for the House as opposed to the Senate. Leo is then better represented in the larger sample space.

If the statistics wouldn't have worked out, one would have to take action. Something like (I don't know) writing your congressperson! :doh:

Swift
2006-Jun-12, 08:43 PM
Well, there is a precident for astrology in US politics Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19880516,00.html)

Celestial Mechanic
2006-Jun-26, 08:03 PM
I wonder when the constellation Mustela, the Weasel was added to the zodiac? :think: