Sure they can. In fact, that's exactly how sampling works. You can get representativeness from as little as 1%.

No, it's not, unless you can demonstrate that the voters are not a representative sample of the community as a whole.

Yes I have: I simply notice that you don't and say GÇ£no, you don'tGÇ¥. And that's entirely your logic, not mine because I have no idea where on earth you got that idea from.

Nope. You simply fail to understand what representativeness means and make generalisations from one (assumed) situation. You are also (as always) confusing yourself by trying to squeeze out more straw men out of what I say rather than read what I actually write.

14% of a population of 450,000 is more than enough to have a representative sample that can produce a fully representative council. Have a look at your TV the next time there's an election where you live, and you'll see this in practice. Thus, the representatives can very easily both represent and be said to represent the interests of those who did not vote, and since they can elicit and pass on comments from everyone, they can equally easily both represent and be said to represent the interests of those who did not vote for them, specifically.

Nope. It was a rejection of the categorical statement that a small sample absolutely cannot be representative.

Nope.
But nice try making it appear as if I did without offering anything to support your claim.

Actually, no. It was a pretty feeble attempt.

Wrong.

Nope.

Ok, I'll be nice to you: your key point was besides the point because it presumed I was making a different point than you thought I was making (GǪthat's a lot of points). My response was that no, that was not the point I was making.

GǪand just because samples can be biased doesn't mean they must be. The question is always Gǣis the sample biased?Gǥ Presuming that it is is just as wrong as presuming that it is not.

Sure it can. After all, that's the whole point of sampling and of representativeness.

Actually, what I'm saying is this:

The 14% that vote can be a fully representative cross-section of the entire EVE population.

Why should I?

That's just it: I never claimed that they did represent the entire population, only that they can.
Exactly how that can be done has already been explained, and you can indulge in it at will. So my response to what you said about higher standards still stands.

Can Gëá must Gëá is.

Prove it. Demonstrate how it is in every way impossible for the sample to be representative. Not just GÇ£it is likely that there is a systematic bias in the subsetGÇ¥ but that it is impossible for the subset to be unbiased.

GǪand the subset sampled can be representative of the population as a whole.

Then learn to read.

This claim was made by her here:


She has not proven this to be true.

Yes, but he's in an NPC corp so it's highly unlikely.

i think in that situation you're being represented by darius iii

In the discussion starting from where you made the claim that it was impossible and onwards. Again, the problem is that you're expecting proof that they do, when what I said is that they can. You're not seeing it because you're assuming the wrong modality..

Even that claim to a tiny margin of "can/could" has no evidence to support that it actually ever "can/could".

Its an empty claim, with no method of proof.

Even in statistics, there exists such a quantity (or lack thereof) as 0 (zero).

Somethings can never happen, no matter what contrived circumstances you set as a premise for them to do so.
Nor does that eliminate the onus to prove that that set of circumstances can ever actually come to pass, no matter with how small a margin of likelihood.

She cannot prove the probability that the conditions she stipulated can/could occur.
With no proof that it can/could occur, the probability remains at zero.

As to the 1 person not being represented, that is sufficient, in current context, to evidence that the CSM does not represent the entirety of the EVE population. And there is no proof that there will not always be that 1 person sufficient to disprove those conditions in future.

Calculate and prove to me then the realistic probability of the CSM panel representing the entirety of the EVE population.

You're moving the goalposts.

The probability that all 450,000(ish) TQ accounts randomly agree on a matter is 1:2^450,000(ish) (or, more accurately, the probability that they hold at least one opinion on the matter, to the power of 450,000). This is a non-zero value.
If they all agree, the opinion they all hold on the matter is represented on the CSM.

You have not invalidated that particular case always being the case, however.

You might as well try to argue that the chance gravity will magically turn off is 1/X.
There is no figure small enough to represent that probability. That is called 0.

That part I do not agree on, and that is the division between us.
We will have to agree to disagree.