Same Sex Marriage Approved By California Supreme Court.

Same Sex Marriage Approved By California Supreme Court.

Congratulations guys for coming out of the closet (not that there's anything wrong with that). However, it's too little too late.

In case anyone feels I am mocking the California Supreme Court's ruling today over same sex marriage, I am not.

I am actually mocking the attempt by the Barack Obama camp to try and overshadow Hillary Clinton's 41 point margin of victory in West Virginia, and the Nebraska primary vote, by introducing John Edwards the day after Hillary's huge victories.

The Edwards announcement was not a momentum changer, it was just touted as one by the media as an excuse to stop talking about West Virginia. The media never even got around to mentioning that in Nebraska Hillary Clinton only lost by two points in the Nebraska primary, a stark difference to the 35% point loss Hillary suffered at the hands of a cheating Barack Obama in the Nebraska caucus vote.

Let us not also forget the Washington State primary, which showed a 30 point margin of victory REDUCTION from their previous caucus vote. Barack Obama's caucus state wins are ALL TAINTED, and the mathematical proof is becoming more and more self evident with each passing day.

My Challenge to College Math Professors results in a Failing Grade.

My Challenge to College Math Professors.

If you are a professor of Math at a college, I have a math problem for you to solve. What are the odds that the top 10 and top 11 highest winning percentages for Barack Obama would all come from caucus states? What are the odds that the top 11 caucus wins and zero primary wins are just a coincidence, and how much do the odds reduce if Barack Obama happened to have better organization in all of those caucus states than Hillary Clinton?

The critical data to work with is the following. Through May 10th of 2008 there were 32 primaries and approximately 17 caucuses. What are the odds that Barack Obama's top 11 highest percentages were all from caucus states? I believe the odds of the 11 highest winning percentages all being from caucus states to be in the millions, and possibly even the billions. I believe that at a miniumum 3 primaries should be mixed in among Barack Obama's top 10 or 11 winning percentages for the results to be considered mathematically legitimate.

If you read the comments section you will find additional information that may help you with your calculations. Otherwise you can keep it simple and just go with the data provided above.

I would like a college professor to give me their calcuation results, or they can make it a class project and have their students do it.

Thank you in advance. It's been a over a week since I made my challenge and after an initial attempt seemed to stall, nobody else seems able to provide a mathematical probability.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

Obama gained a questionable advantage in the democratic electoral process when his caucus state wins far exceeded the realistic margin of victory he would have gained if there had been an actual state primary vote instead of a caucus vote. The caucus state results have netted Barrack Obama an out of whack delegate gain of 169 delegates when compared to the number of people that actually voted. The caucus state wins for Barrack Obama were so out of the realistic margin of victory that if Hillary Clinton were awarded 4 MORE State of California primary victories by the same margin she won the first California Primary, Hillary Clinton would still net less delegates than Barrack Obama did from the caucus state votes.

Lets break down that last statistic to truly understand its meaning. Hillary Clinton won in a convincing manner in California yet 4 Californias and the 16 million and 785,548 votes they represent, including a winning margin for Hillary Clinton of 1 million and 665,340 votes, WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to overtake Barrack Obama's inflated margin of victory in all the caucus states that involved a vote of only 1.1 million total voters and only 400,000 more votes for Obama. It appears it would take 9 Californias and 33 million votes with a 3.3 million vote advantage for Hillary Clinton to undo the advantage the caucus states inaccurately contributed to the 2008 democratic presidential race.

Do you see why the moment that Barrack Obama had overwhelmingly won undervote caucus states that his camp began bellowing that Hillary could not catch them no matter what! If the Caucus state margins of victory that Barrack Obama won by had actually represented the accurate winning percentage of that states voters, then there is no controversy. Yet look what happened in the State of Washington. Obama won the caucus vote by a 68-31% vote, but then in the non-binding primary vote held 10 days later, Barrack Obama barely won 50% to 49.6%. The danger of caucus vote states is that the much smaller voting sample WILL NOT actually represent the true will of that states populace. Does Barack Obama's "change" involve not accurately representing the true popular vote of each state in the country?

By setting up a caucus system in which one vote actually represents the will of 10 voters, the one person, one vote system has been throw off the rails and Barrack Obama has used this bias to create even more momentum and tumult among the democratic party. It was not until Barrack Obama suggested that Hillary was staying in the race and hurting the democratic party that Hillary's overall popularity dipped in the polls.

Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, Barrack Obama had 57% of all delegates, but only 51% of the popular vote, further proof how the caucus states have influenced the 2008 Presidential election far beyond the number of people who actually voted.