The Reality-Based Community

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  • Home
  • About
  • Cannabis Science & Policy Summit
  • MJ Legalization: The Book
  • BOTEC Analysis
You are here: Home / The pundits and the rounding error

The pundits and the rounding error

April 23, 2008 By Mark Kleiman @markarkleiman

Look around the web, and you’ll see lots of discussion of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “10-point win” over Barack Obama.

I think it was my sixth-grade teacher who told me always to round after the calculation rather than rounding the inputs to the calculation. Too bad she doesn’t work for any of the big media outfits.

According to CNN, Clinton has 1,258,000 of 2,300,000 votes. That comes to just under 54.7%, which means that she beat Obama by 54.7 – 45.3 = 9.4 percentage points. If you weren’t interested in too much precision, you might round it down to 9 points.

But instead, CNN rounds 54.7% up to 55%, and 45.3% down to 45%, giving Clinton an apparent 10-point win. Everyone else does the same.

And that will still be apparently true even if, as I estimate, the final margin after those last Delaware County and Philadelphia precincts come in is 54.5+ to 45.4+.

So a margin of about 9.1 points gets translated into a margin of 10 points: a single-digit win into double-digit win. And all because the networks don’t think their viewers can stand three significant figures, and the pundits can’t be bothered to do their own arithmetic.

Update A reader points out that the rule “calculate, then round off” applies only when you’re rounding off just to save space. If the rounding reflects the limits of precision of the underlying measurements, it’s better to get rid of the noise first.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Wayward press

Popular Posts of the Week

  • Advice to Alex M
  • Unlearning How White People Ask Personal Questions
  • The Secret Dubbing of Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady
  • Witnessing Violence and Death: What Happens to People and How Can They Be Helped?
  • “I take it the answer is: ‘No comment’?”

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • The Belgravia Dispatch
  • Brad DeLong
  • Cop in the ‘hood
  • Crooked Timber
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Echidne of the Snakes
  • Firedoglake
  • A Fistful of Euros
  • Healthinsurance.org Blog
  • Horizons
  • How Appealing
  • The Incidental Economist
  • Informed Comment — Juan Cole
  • Jonathan Bernstein
  • Kevin Drum
  • Marginal Revolution – Tyler Cowen
  • Marijuana Monitor
  • The Moderate Voice
  • Obsidian Wings
  • Patheos
  • Philosoraptor
  • Plato o Plomo – Alejandro Hope
  • Political Animal
  • Politics Upside Down
  • Progressive Blog Digest
  • Progressive Blue
  • Slacktivist
  • Snopes
  • Strange Doctrines
  • Ta-Nehisi Coates
  • The Volokh Conspiracy (Washington Post)
  • Vox Pop

Recent Posts

  • Television Was Not Always a Vast Wasteland
  • Home
  • “I take it the answer is: ‘No comment’?”
  • There’s ordinary genius. Then there’s this video
  • The libertine’s one-way ticket from Prague

Archives

Topic Areas

Copyright © 2017 The Reality-Based Community  •  Designed & Developed by ReadyMadeWeb LLC