Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tl00357)

At 12:17 PM 9/19/97 -0400, Paul wrote:

<friendly snip>
>Of the 94 whose sun signs I could identify, there are:
>12 Cancers (9D,4R)
>11 Scorpios (7D,4R)
>10 Pisces (6D,4R)
>9 Virgos (5D,4R)
>9 Aquarians (7R,2D)
>9 Taureans (7R,2D)
>8 Sagittarians (5R,3D)
>7 Capricorns (4R,3D)
>6 Librans (4R,2D)
>5 Aries (4R,1D)
>5 Leos (3D,2R)
>4 Geminis (2D,2R) The only tie-- how appropriate!
>
>Disparity in party affiliation by signs is more apparent when
>we note that the Democrats number 7 Cancers, 7 Scorpios, 6
>Pisces, 3 Capricorns, 3 Sagittarians, 3 Leos, 2 Taureans, 2
>Geminis, 2 Libras, 1 Aries.  Whereas the Republicans number 7
>Taureans, 7 Aquarians, 5 Sagittarians, 4 each for Aries,
>Cancer, Virgo, Libra, Capricorn, and Pisces, 2 each for Geminis
>and Leos.
>
>Preliminary comments: Most striking is the overrepresentation
>of water signs Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces in the Senate as a
>whole and especially among the Democrats.  Almost equally
>strong is the leaning of Taureans and Aquarians to the
>Republicans.
>
>Oddities about states: both Hawaii Senators are Virgos, both
>Floridians are Scorpios, both Arkansans are Leos (like our
>Arkie president) and both Wyoming Senators are Aquarians.
>
>Further analysis invited.

Hi Paul,

It's also interesting to break these down by mode: cardinal, fixed, or
mutable.

Cardinal = 15D/16R
Fixed = 14D/20R
Mutable = 16D/15R

For cardinal and mutable modes it's a near tie between the parties, but the
heavy predominance of Republicans in fixed signs may be statistically
significant. (This is the result of the cluster of Republicans you
mentioned in Taurus and Aquarius, you mentioned, as both are fixed signs.)
When taking all of the senators in each mode, the cardinal and mutable
modes are each tied at 31 and fixed comes out ahead at 34.

BTW, you meant that you didn't use the birthdates for four senators, didn't
you? We have info here for 96 (31+31+34) senators and last I knew the total
number of senators was 100. (I'm still trying to figure out how we're off
by two instead of one because the only discrepancy between our figures I
can find is that there are 13 Cancers, not 12.) ;-D

Lynn

***********************************
Lynn Moncrief
(techndex@pacbell.net)
TECHindex & Docs
Technical and Scientific Indexing
***********************************