Maybe. Or they were unable to for any number of reasons, like not being able to get the time off work, for example. Compulsory voting does not mean you can't abstain, or shouldn't, but it does eliminate the people who want to vote, but for legal/logistical reasons, were unable to.

Because for three months of writing and it sounds like numerous hours of marketing you’ve made almost $8000. While I imagine that puts you ahead of the curve for the average self published author, The hourly return on investment sounds pretty low, especially for a job that sounds marketing heavy, which is not everyone’s cup of tea

You're missing the point though. They're not looking for bad science, they're politically opposed to this particular outcome.

It's well known that the immediate post-workout response to protein is far greater in the untrained population. Once you've been training a while, the necessity of eating in the immediate postprandial window for gains disappears. It's unfortunate that not only did this study not control on weight training experience but it seems to have eliminated anyone who trained more than 3 times a week.

Let's simplify and look at three balls, whose possible permutations are

1. rrr 2. rrg 3. rgr 4. rgg 5. grr 6. grg 7. ggr 8. ggg

There are two approaches that are intuitive and wrong, and then the right approach. Specifically it depends which question you're answering.

1. What are the odds when picking two random balls over and over from the same permutation.

  - You might assume the odds of each ball are completely independent, making the odds of a first red n/100, and then a second red slightly lower at n-1/99.  This is what happens when you pick two random balls over and over from the same permutation.

  - You might assume that if you've selected a red ball first you must be in permutations 1-4, making the odds of a second red ball 50% (permutations 1-2). This is what happens when choosing the first (and second) ball in order from a random permutation.

  - This is what we're actually being asked to do.

  - In this case the odds of picking red first are proportional to the number of reds in the permutation.  Specifically, picking red is guaranteed when in permutation 1, and 67% likely when in permutations 2,3, and 5, but only 33% likely when in scenarios 4, 6, and 7, and impossible in scenario 8. While it is equally likely to be in permutations 4 or 5, unlike scenario 2, you're more likely to choose a red ball when in 5 than 4, and in general, you're more likely to pick a red ball first when in a permutation that has more red balls to choose from. And because it does, the second draw is more likely to be red as well.

  - Like in the Monty Hall problem, the color of the first ball is, while random, unintuitively not arbitrary, but rather an indication that there are more balls of that color to choose from in the urn, which gives you an advantage in knowing what the second draw will be.

Imagine calculating the odds by choosing the first ball from every permutation of red and green balls. And then do the same by choosing a random ball from each permutation. The odds of getting red on the first pick in either case is 50% - but it's not the same 50%!

With an example of three balls, there are 8 permutations. If we take the first ball from each row, 1-4 have a red ball, and so from there, 1 and 2 have a second red ball, making the chance of a second red ball given a first 50%. However, if we take a random ball from each row, we are guaranteed to get a red first in 1, and more likely to get one in 2, 3, and 5 than the others. In those cases, red will be next 67% of the time. (100% for 1, and 50% for 2, 3, and 4.)

1. rrr 2. rrg 3. rgr 4. rgg 5. grr 6. grg 7. ggr 8. ggg

Like in the Monty Hall question, knowing that the first ball is red tells us something about the rest of the balls, that most of them are probably red too.