Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    So how exactly did these people function in a modern society which pretty much requires an ID to do just about anything these days?
    Apparently they're shut-ins who have others do everything for them including pay for everything since they don't have checks, credit cards, or even cash never having had a job (which requires an ID to get).
    There are dozens of things in our society that require a government ID, but when was the last time you heard liberals decry, say, the airline industry for being racist because you need a valid ID to board an airplane? Or the rental industry? Yeah, try renting a car without a proper ID and see what happens. How about purchasing alcohol and tobacco products? Why, that racist clerk at the counter will demand you produce a valid ID! Want to get a fishing permit? Sorry, show your ID first. Unemployment? Food stamps? Cashing your welfare check? ID required.

    But you want to vote? And you can't prove you are who you say you are? No problem, here's your ballot!
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      There are dozens of things in our society that require a government ID, but when was the last time you heard liberals decry, say, the airline industry for being racist because you need a valid ID to board an airplane? Or the rental industry? Yeah, try renting a car without a proper ID and see what happens. How about purchasing alcohol and tobacco products? Why, that racist clerk at the counter will demand you produce a valid ID! Want to get a fishing permit? Sorry, show your ID first. Unemployment? Food stamps? Cashing your welfare check? ID required.

      But you want to vote? And you can't prove you are who you say you are? No problem, here's your ballot!
      We do not have a constitutional right to fly, rent, or buy any particular thing. We DO have a constitutional right to vote. Historically, most people simply have to provide proof they are resident within the voting district (a couple of pieces of mail correctly addressed did the job for me). There is nothing wrong with straigthening that out and tightening it up. However, if that process is going to disenfranchise legitimate voters - then it needs to be done carefully to minimize that impact (e.g., implementing the ID system with adequate suppports before making it mandatory). Given that it STILL has not been shown that such a process is solving a statistically significant problem - causing a significant impact on registered voters is simply not warranted.

      That there is resistance to this amazes me, frankly. One of the key objections to licenses, database, and universal background checks for gun owners is that it could prevent people with a valid right to own a firearm from doing so. This is exactly the same situation - with exactly the same solution. I have to continue to wonder why there is so much insistence on "do it now" without regard to voting impact versus problem resolution balances. The only conclusion I can draw is that the negative impact on valid voters is actually a desired outcome - because it disproportionately impacts the parties. Little wonder that Republicans are generally for it and Democrats generally against.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        ...if that process is going to disenfranchise legitimate voters...
        If someone can't prove their identity then they're not a legitimate voter by definition.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          If someone can't prove their identity then they're not a legitimate voter by definition.
          Except that is not how it has been for several hundred years now, MM. So if the state is going to implement new requirements for voting, it needs to be done without impacting existing registered voters.

          And I note you left the rest of my points unanswered.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            ...you left the rest of my points unanswered.
            I answered the only point that mattered. The rest of it was just partisan talking points.

            It's a given that there are some serious flaws with our current voting system that make fraud almost impossible to detect and prevent. Every election, there are "irregularities" like certain districts (usually Democrat controlled) recording more votes than there are registered voters, or precincts voting 100% for the Democrat candidate, or something like we saw in Michigan in the recent presidential election where every district that Hillary won was so screwed up that they couldn't even be recounted -- things like sealed boxes that were supposed to have a few hundred ballots but contained less than a hundred.

            Are these examples of voter fraud? Very possibly, but again, the tools for discovering it are currently not in place. Liberals love to claim that Republicans' only goal for tightening up the voting process is to disenfranchise certain demographic groups, but it seems more than a little suspicious that Democrats seem to make out like bandits under the current system where elections can be stolen with impunity, so it begs the question, why are they really against voter ID?
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              I did not use the studies for my math - my math was simply pointing out the incorrect use being made of the database cited earlier - and the math was solid. The point was, without the weighting, you have a 10,000:1 ratio - and that's on the generous side (i.e., including all of the forms of fraud voter ID would NOT address). You would have to make the case that for every indicted case of voter fraud, over 10,000 cases of non-indicted voter fraud exist - just to break even.

              Those studies show that the projected number of such cases doesn't even begin to approach those values.

              There's nothing wrong with my math, Teal. If there is - then you need to show it. And dismissing over a dozen studies as "bad" without even reading them is not going to cut it. I'm aware that my arguments and the math ar enot going to convince anyone here. We've reached a point in our society there data and research have simply become irrelevant. Heck, even the CDC has recently been told by the executive branch that they may not use the terms "evidence-based" and "science-based" in their documentation (specifically budget request, I believe). But they are not irrelevant to me - they serve as the basis for my conclusions.
              A: You haven't given me time to read them! I only pointed out that if they did the same thing that you did, they are flawed - and badly.
              I did read, as I stated, one refutation that agrees with you - the incidence is not taken into account.

              B: The rules of survey research methodology don't allow removal of a major variable simply because you don't have a good measure for it. That's why weighting exists. And for the record, it's used in virtually all modern polling. Your equation is missing a value - you cannot get a rational result without it. Period.

              C: Conviction rates and incidence rates are NEVER identical, even if every person accused in an incident is actually guilty. Measuring only conviction badly skews the data set - it's like only measuring syphilis cases brought to treatment instead of confirmed positives - the data you get is NOT the number of people who have syphilis.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                A: You haven't given me time to read them! I only pointed out that if they did the same thing that you did, they are flawed - and badly.
                I did read, as I stated, one refutation that agrees with you - the incidence is not taken into account.
                Then I suggest you read them - or at least some of them.

                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                B: The rules of survey research methodology don't allow removal of a major variable simply because you don't have a good measure for it. That's why weighting exists. And for the record, it's used in virtually all modern polling. Your equation is missing a value - you cannot get a rational result without it. Period.
                Teal - first of all - I am not trying to assert a position - I am showing how the assertion that the proferred database is adequate to make a definitive statement about the extent of voter fraud simply doesn't work. And frankly - for a similar reason - it makes claims on the basis of evidence that does not provide adequate basis.

                Second of all - I do not have the data to make a proper weighting - so I'm not going to try only to told I don't have the basis. I already KNOW I don't have the basis. What I am showing is what the weighting would have to be able to show to make the argument that is being made (that there is a statistically significant incidence of voter fraud that warrants a voter ID system, even if it disenfranchises multitudes.

                To take it out of the "sensitive" area and use an analogy. If someone pointed to the database of known meteor strikes and claimed, see all of these? This justifies an expenditure for a planet-wide meteor defense system. I would take the database, break it across the known size of the earth, show the relatively low incidence of meteor that penetrate to the ground, point out that there has been one documented death due to meteor strike in the history of the species, and suggest perhaps we ar enot in such imminent harm. If someone says, "we are because you have not included the weighting factor," my response would be, "you're the one arguing for this position - I am merely pointing out that the evidence you have provided does not make your case. If you think the weighting factor will make the difference, by all means present it.

                That is the same message I am giving to you and others: the evidence provided for voter fraud is not statistically significant enough to justify disenfranchising existing voters. If you want to make the case it is, and you feel a weighting factor is needed to make that case, then by all means provide the weighting factor, the math, and the argument to support it and I'll look at it. Meanwhile, the argument that we should be "doing X" to solve a problem that has not been shown to exist is simply not, IMO, supportable.

                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                C: Conviction rates and incidence rates are NEVER identical, even if every person accused in an incident is actually guilty. Measuring only conviction badly skews the data set - it's like only measuring syphilis cases brought to treatment instead of confirmed positives - the data you get is NOT the number of people who have syphilis.
                I never said they were. I'm sure there are undocumented cases of voter fraud - and even documented cases that did not reach conviction. So present the data about its extent, and let's look at it. My point was simply that the weighting will have to show at least a 10,000:1 increase in order to achieve the levels of disproportionate disenfranchisement indicated by the existing studies. Somehow, I doubt the weighting will hit those extreme levels - btu if you have the evidence, I will certainly look at it.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  I answered the only point that mattered. The rest of it was just partisan talking points.
                  It's a partisan talking poijnt that your comparison was all to things that are not constitutionally protected? It's a partisan talking point that the argument parallels the argument made against gun control?

                  As I have noted before - I am not againstvoter IDs. I am against implementing them in a way that will disenfranchise existing voters - Democrat OR Republican. It's not clear to me how that is "partisan."

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  It's a given that there are some serious flaws with our current voting system that make fraud almost impossible to detect and prevent. Every election, there are "irregularities" like certain districts (usually Democrat controlled) recording more votes than there are registered voters, or precincts voting 100% for the Democrat candidate, or something like we saw in Michigan in the recent presidential election where every district that Hillary won was so screwed up that they couldn't even be recounted -- things like sealed boxes that were supposed to have a few hundred ballots but contained less than a hundred.
                  No one is arguing that the voter registry is cluttered with extra names due to death and population movement. This is a known problem. It is NOT evidence of voter fraud, which is what is being asserted. You can put in all of the clean-up-the-registries actions you wish without one complaint from me, as long as what is being removed is actual duplication and dead people. The problem with the proposal being made is that VoterIDs are not going to clean those rolls, nor are they going to KEEP them clean. People will still die, and move, and the rolls will stay dirty - unless the VoterID/registration is done at a national level with a centralize database of voters and renewal happens frequently enough to eliminate dead voters. I have no problem with either of those things - if they are properly done

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Are these examples of voter fraud? Very possibly, but again, the tools for discovering it are currently not in place. Liberals love to claim that Republicans' only goal for tightening up the voting process is to disenfranchise certain demographic groups, but it seems more than a little suspicious that Democrats seem to make out like bandits under the current system where elections can be stolen with impunity, so it begs the question, why are they really against voter ID?
                  So you think that the failure of decades-old machines is going to be solved with Voter ID laws?

                  How about diverting more resources to polling places to get new machines when/where they are needed? And I did not claim that was your "only" goal - I said that it is suspicious that Republicans want to forge ahead with Voter ID laws that will benefit them in the polling place when there are strategies for implementing these things in a way that is voting-neutral and will not disenfranchise anyone.

                  I have two boys, MM. When my son says, "Dad, can I use the car to go to the grocery store," and I point out that the grocery store is around the corner, it's a beautiful day, and we don't need many groceries, but he insists he HAS to have the car to make the trip, I begin to suspect he has other intentions for the car.

                  The same is true here. There are ways to implement Voter IDs so it does not disenfranchise anyone. Most of the problems Voter IDs are said to solve simply won't be solved with Voter IDs, and the problem they are purporting to solve has not been shown to have any statistically relevant impact on voting. So when Republicans insist it has to be done now, in the absence of rational evidence, and in the face of the documented/researched level of disenfranchisement and the fact that this disenfranchisement will benefit their party and negatively impact their opposition - I fell like I'm looking at my son asking for the car again. Something else is going on - because the justifications/arguments make no sense - and fly in the face of available evidence.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Then I suggest you read them - or at least some of them.
                    I alreeady said I would.



                    Teal - first of all - I am not trying to assert a position - I am showing how the assertion that the proferred database is adequate to make a definitive statement about the extent of voter fraud simply doesn't work. And frankly - for a similar reason - it makes claims on the basis of evidence that does not provide adequate basis.

                    Second of all - I do not have the data to make a proper weighting - so I'm not going to try only to told I don't have the basis. I already KNOW I don't have the basis. What I am showing is what the weighting would have to be able to show to make the argument that is being made (that there is a statistically significant incidence of voter fraud that warrants a voter ID system, even if it disenfranchises multitudes.

                    To take it out of the "sensitive" area and use an analogy. If someone pointed to the database of known meteor strikes and claimed, see all of these? This justifies an expenditure for a planet-wide meteor defense system. I would take the database, break it across the known size of the earth, show the relatively low incidence of meteor that penetrate to the ground, point out that there has been one documented death due to meteor strike in the history of the species, and suggest perhaps we ar enot in such imminent harm. If someone says, "we are because you have not included the weighting factor," my response would be, "you're the one arguing for this position - I am merely pointing out that the evidence you have provided does not make your case. If you think the weighting factor will make the difference, by all means present it.

                    That is the same message I am giving to you and others: the evidence provided for voter fraud is not statistically significant enough to justify disenfranchising existing voters. If you want to make the case it is, and you feel a weighting factor is needed to make that case, then by all means provide the weighting factor, the math, and the argument to support it and I'll look at it. Meanwhile, the argument that we should be "doing X" to solve a problem that has not been shown to exist is simply not, IMO, supportable.
                    Then you don't have the data for the support you used previously - your ratio - which is exactly what I said. I didn't MAKE a case for one or the other, other than pointing out that voter fraud was just as valid an interpretation for one of the data based contentions (ten or fifteen pages back - you find it if you want). My point was that your 'math' was flawed by the glaring omission of a major variable.

                    Since your data and your equations - now your math based on this post - is all in question, you have no real basis for the assertion, either.

                    I never said they were. I'm sure there are undocumented cases of voter fraud - and even documented cases that did not reach conviction. So present the data about its extent, and let's look at it. My point was simply that the weighting will have to show at least a 10,000:1 increase in order to achieve the levels of disproportionate disenfranchisement indicated by the existing studies. Somehow, I doubt the weighting will hit those extreme levels - btu if you have the evidence, I will certainly look at it.
                    Only if you run, irrationally, from the conviction rate instead of the incident rate. Since I've not seen anything done with the incident rate, and neither evidently have you, I have no idea what the numbers would look like - and neither, evidently, do you.

                    To weight rationally, you (general) need even more data - I don't have it and don't have an interest in hunting it all down. But I CAN tell the difference between good methodology and bad and if the methodology leads me to question the external validity, the internal validity will not make up for it, as you're trying to do here.

                    If all those studies are from conviction without incidence, you wasted a lot of time reading them.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      So you think that the failure of decades-old machines is going to be solved with Voter ID laws?
                      Blaming the numerous and significant discrepancies, like recording more votes than there are registered voters, or sealed ballot boxes containing fewer votes than they're supposed to, can not be blamed on outdated equipment.

                      You claim that Republicans have ulterior motives for wanting voter ID laws. It can just as easily be argued that Democrats have ulterior motives for opposing them.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        I alreeady said I would.

                        Then you don't have the data for the support you used previously - your ratio - which is exactly what I said.
                        Umm.. yes I do. The voter fraud data was taken from the database (which is what my statement was about). I included all 1088 instances listed even though many (most?) of them would not be solved by voter ID laws. I took my voting data from published information about registered voters (given that over 125 million people voted in 2016, an estimate of 100 million voters was very conservative). I reduced the number of votes cast to bi-annual (again being conservative because elections are held every year, not counting special elections), producing the conservative estimate of 800 million votes cast in the 16 year period covered by the database. And I used the 2% published ratio of negative impact to voters - which comes from the studies I cited.

                        That mean the documented incidences of convicted voter fraud are LESS than 0.000136 percent of votes cast. The documented impact is 2%. This means any weighting has to increase the voter fraud incident rate AT LEAST three orders of magnitude (2,000), and that's a conservative number. If I were to use actual voting numbers for every year, the order of magnitude rises to over 100,000 (five orders of magnitude). I was attempting to be conservative.

                        Now if you can point to an error in the math, please do so. But the argument that I am "not factoring in weighting" doesn't make any sense when my point is what the weighting will have to show so as to justify arguments in support of an anti-voter fraud initiative.

                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        I didn't MAKE a case for one or the other, other than pointing out that voter fraud was just as valid an interpretation for one of the data based contentions (ten or fifteen pages back - you find it if you want). My point was that your 'math' was flawed by the glaring omission of a major variable.

                        Since your data and your equations - now your math based on this post - is all in question, you have no real basis for the assertion, either.
                        Feel free to check my math and show me where it fails.

                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Only if you run, irrationally, from the conviction rate instead of the incident rate. Since I've not seen anything done with the incident rate, and neither evidently have you, I have no idea what the numbers would look like - and neither, evidently, do you.

                        To weight rationally, you (general) need even more data - I don't have it and don't have an interest in hunting it all down. But I CAN tell the difference between good methodology and bad and if the methodology leads me to question the external validity, the internal validity will not make up for it, as you're trying to do here.

                        If all those studies are from conviction without incidence, you wasted a lot of time reading them.
                        The rest of this is pretty much all an assertion, or a claim (I think) that is not related to what I have been saying. If you can show where my math fails, please do so. If you have data to provide the weighting that would make the claims about voter fraud valid, I will certainly look at it. Until then - I'll let my math and my post stand. The argument that this database shows that voter fraud is happening at a statistically significant level and justifies voter ID initiatives is simply untrue, for the reasons I have outlined.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-17-2017, 04:04 PM.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Blaming the numerous and significant discrepancies, like recording more votes than there are registered voters, or sealed ballot boxes containing fewer votes than they're supposed to, can not be blamed on outdated equipment.

                          You claim that Republicans have ulterior motives for wanting voter ID laws. It can just as easily be argued that Democrats have ulterior motives for opposing them.
                          Umm.. no - I don't claim it. I suspect it. And I am sure Democrats oppose them because they are likely to have a disproportionate impact on their votes. Whether or not they actually care about the people impacted is not something I can assess. I'm sure some do, and some don't. I have no data on the proportion.

                          MY concern is the impact on voters. ANY action that disenfranchises voter is, IMO, unamerican - but especially one that does so with no adequate justification, and ones that can be avoided by a simple change of approach.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Umm.. yes I do. The voter fraud data was taken from the database (which is what my statement was about). I included all 1088 instances listed even though many (most?) of them would not be solved by voter ID laws. I took my voting data from published information about registered voters (given that over 125 million people voted in 2016, an estimate of 100 million voters was very conservative). I reduced the number of votes cast to bi-annual (again being conservative because elections are held every year, not counting special elections), producing the conservative estimate of 800 million votes cast in the 16 year period covered by the database. And I used the 2% published ratio of negative impact to voters - which comes from the studies I cited.

                            That mean the documented incidences of convicted voter fraud are LESS than 0.000136 percent of votes cast. The documented impact is 2%. This means any weighting has to increase the voter fraud incident rate AT LEAST three orders of magnitude (2,000), and that's a conservative number. If I were to use actual voting numbers for every year, the order of magnitude rises to over 100,000 (five orders of magnitude). I was attempting to be conservative.

                            Now if you can point to an error in the math, please do so. But the argument that I am "not factoring in weighting" doesn't make any sense when my point is what the weighting will have to show so as to justify arguments in support of an anti-voter fraud initiative.
                            Nope, you don't.

                            *emphasis mine
                            This is NOT the incident rate - not even close. The only reason to use it alone is to skew the numbers - which is what it does. 'Documented impact' tells us nothing more than what was CONVICTED yet we already know that conviction rate is lower than incidence rate. That would be fine if you were measuring convictions but you're attempting to apply it to voter fraud en toto. It does not measure voter fraud that way - and the external validity is NOT there.

                            Weighting is NOT the issue - I've explained it several times now. Weighting is the solution to the problem that you are missing a variable - incidence. You can solve the same problem by getting solid data on incidence (good luck with that) - but you cannot use conviction rate in its stead.


                            Feel free to check my math and show me where it fails.
                            I don't care if it's internally valid when it's externally invalid. Pretty math minus real world measurements equals a waste of everyone's time.

                            The issue is the external validity because you're using an invalid measure. You need conviction but you also need incidence in order to measure voter fraud.

                            The rest of this is pretty much all an assertion, or a claim (I think) that is not related to what I have been saying. If you can show where my math fails, please do so. If you have data to provide the weighting that would make the claims about voter fraud valid, I will certainly look at it. Until then - I'll let my math and my post stand. The argument that this database shows that voter fraud is happening at a statistically significant level and justifies voter ID initiatives is simply untrue, for the reasons I have outlined.
                            You have no idea what external and internal validity are, do you? Go look them up - I'm telling you your methodology is mucked up - the math is useless if you're using the wrong units! You are using conviction without incidence - it CANNOT measure voter fraud any more than quarts can measure a football field.
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Nope, you don't.

                              *emphasis mine
                              This is NOT the incident rate - not even close. The only reason to use it alone is to skew the numbers - which is what it does. 'Documented impact' tells us nothing more than what was CONVICTED yet we already know that conviction rate is lower than incidence rate. That would be fine if you were measuring convictions but you're attempting to apply it to voter fraud en toto. It does not measure voter fraud that way - and the external validity is NOT there.

                              Weighting is NOT the issue - I've explained it several times now. Weighting is the solution to the problem that you are missing a variable - incidence. You can solve the same problem by getting solid data on incidence (good luck with that) - but you cannot use conviction rate in its stead.

                              I don't care if it's internally valid when it's externally invalid. Pretty math minus real world measurements equals a waste of everyone's time.

                              The issue is the external validity because you're using an invalid measure. You need conviction but you also need incidence in order to measure voter fraud.

                              You have no idea what external and internal validity are, do you? Go look them up - I'm telling you your methodology is mucked up - the math is useless if you're using the wrong units! You are using conviction without incidence - it CANNOT measure voter fraud any more than quarts can measure a football field.
                              I'm not sure why - but I have the sense we are agreeing violently. You are basically restating my point, Teal. My entire argument was that the claim that the database (conviction rate) shows that voter fraud is occuring at a rate that merits action fails. The database only shows conviction rate, and the numbers are statistically insignificant. To make the case that action is justified, the numbers would need to be augmented to include non-conviction rates (incidence), and those numbers do not exist (or at least I have not seen them). To derive them would require weighting - and since we know the published impact, we know what the incidence rate would need to be to justify action. So the (missing) weighting would need to show at LEAST a 2,000:1 ratio between the conviction rate and the incidence rate to support the claim "statistically significant voter fraud," at a par with the impact rate, and that's using VERY conservative numbers. I sincerely doubt a weighting of that extreme could be shown - but if someone can - I'm all ears.

                              With that being said - I think I have repeated myself enough. I'll leave the last word to you if you are so inclined.

                              (but yes - I do iunderstand statistics - mathematics was my minor - and I was pretty darned good at it - summa cum laude good )
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-17-2017, 04:44 PM.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                At this point, Teal - I think we're talking past each other. I don't understand why you do not see the simple mathematics and the reason they hold up, but my insistence is not likely to change that. I am comfortable with the conclusions of my math as stated. I have not seen anything from you to make me question them. I suspect you think I'm making an argument I'm not making, but I don't think that is going to be resolved. Since I am at a point of repeating myself, I'll leave the last word to you, if you are so inclined.

                                P.S. Yes - I am aware of statistical language. Mathematics was my minor. I am also aware that I am using the mathematics in a way that is both internally and externally consistent, and not applying them to make a claim not supported by the numbers. I'm not sure why you do not see that, but such is life.

                                Out of morbid curiosity - just what point do you think I was attempting to make with the numbers?
                                My background is in Political Science - and a lot of coursework in Survey Research/Statistics. Your numbers flat out don't measure voter fraud - that requires consideration of actual incidence, not mere conviction.

                                You are making a claim with them - that the incidence of voter fraud is statistically insignificant. But since your citing numbers that don't actually measure voter fraud, the claim is without support.

                                What I don't get is how you think you can remove a major variable and not muck up the methodology.
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X