Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Teallaura]

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 )

You stated voter ID was a solution in search of a problem then tried to use the studies you just got finished invalidating to support the assertion that voter fraud is statistically insignificant.

Without incidence, there's no measure of voter fraud. Conclusions based on those numbers are unwarranted. It makes no difference that you need to use higher or lower numbers to get a particular result when the numbers you are starting from are SKEWED. Using conviction by itself skews the numbers - only a moron would attempt weighting with that basis. It's just foolishness to draw conclusions from bad methodology.

[carpedm9587]

You stated voter ID was a solution in search of a problem then tried to use the studies you just got finished invalidating to support the assertion that voter fraud is statistically insignificant.

Without incidence, there's no measure of voter fraud. Conclusions based on those numbers are unwarranted. It makes no difference that you need to use higher or lower numbers to get a particular result when the numbers you are starting from are SKEWED. Using conviction by itself skews the numbers - only a moron would attempt weighting with that basis. It's just foolishness to draw conclusions from bad methodology.

I am going to clarify what I said one last time. I said that voter ID is a solution to a problem which has yet to be shown to occur at statistically significant levels. Someone provided a link to the database to prove voter fraud occurred. I objected to that interpretation as mathematically unjustified for the reasons stated. At no point did I say voter fraud was proven NOT to occur at a statistical level. There is a difference between "voter fraud has not been shown to occur at a statistically significant level" and "voter fraud is not occurring at a statistically significant level." I said the former. I do not recall ever saying the latter.

We appear to be agreeing violently.

[carpedm9587]

And this is another danger of the emphasis on voter fraud when it has NOT been shown to occur with statistical significance.

http://whnt.com/2017/12/16/roy-moore...cial-election/

Losers in an election attempt to pull on those claims to undermine the election integrity. Even Trump, who WON the election, couldn't help but make the claim "voter fraud" without a shred of evidence then or since, because his fragile ego was damaged by his almost 3M loss in the popular vote.

The damage to our confidence in our own electoral systems being made by unsubstantiated charges is extensive - and those claims are coming largely from the right. I think a more ethical path would be to find the substantiating evidence of widespread voter fraud first - then (if that can be substantiated) propose actual workable solutions that do NOT disenfranchise voters. If not - drop it and move on to things that ACTUALLY make a difference.

[Roy]

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, ...

They're obviously not examples of voter fraud, since individual voters would not be able to affect the contents of ballot boxes or ensure a 100% vote for one candidate. If they are examples of fraud, they are examples of fraud by election officials, not by voters.

[Sparko]

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.

flying and renting cars and driving cars and having bank accounts and social security numbers and a job and all that aren't "rights" but they are necessary things to function in our society and require IDs. Without them you can't do much. So pretty much everyone who does function in our society has an ID. It. is. not. a. problem.

most people without ID are either homeless people who have lost it along the way, illegals who can't get it, or people who don't WANT to be IDed (criminals, people living "off the grid" like survivalists and other nutjobs)

it is not "millions" of people being disenfranchised. That's ridiculous.

[Sparko]

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.

yes it has always been so. Heck at one time you had to prove you owned land to vote. You have always had to prove your citizenship to vote. from the beginning.

[Cow Poke]

flying and renting cars and driving cars and having bank accounts and social security numbers and a job and all that aren't "rights" but they are necessary things to function in our society and require IDs. Without them you can't do much. So pretty much everyone who does function in our society has an ID. It. is. not. a. problem.

most people without ID are either homeless people who have lost it along the way, illegals who can't get it, or people who don't WANT to be IDed (criminals, people living "off the grid" like survivalists and other nutjobs)

it is not "millions" of people being disenfranchised. That's ridiculous.

I wonder - seriously - how many of these "disenfranchised people" would be perfectly happy exercising their RIGHT to stay home and not vote, were it not for the liberals needing their votes at the polls to keep themselves in power. I wonder what that actual number would be.

[Sparko]

I wonder - seriously - how many of these "disenfranchised people" would be perfectly happy exercising their RIGHT to stay home and not vote, were it not for the liberals needing their votes at the polls to keep themselves in power. I wonder what that actual number would be.

I wonder how many actually do stay home while they "vote" at the polls to keep the democrats in power.

[carpedm9587]

flying and renting cars and driving cars and having bank accounts and social security numbers and a job and all that aren't "rights" but they are necessary things to function in our society and require IDs. Without them you can't do much. So pretty much everyone who does function in our society has an ID. It. is. not. a. problem

I can introduce you to many people who have never flown and never rented. The government has several temporary IDs that can be used to file taxes, and they are liberally used. The fact is, Sparko - for all of your "examples" and protestations, you have not shown any research to suggest that the studies I pointed to, which point to a 2% impact on voter access, are wrong. You just have a lot of anecdotes. An anecdote is not an argument. If you're going to prove the data/research wrong, you will need corresponding research to show that the numbers should be different.

most people without ID are either homeless people who have lost it along the way, illegals who can't get it, or people who don't WANT to be IDed (criminals, people living "off the grid" like survivalists and other nutjobs)

And this is an assertion without substance. The data...please? Where is the research that supports this position?

it is not "millions" of people being disenfranchised. That's ridiculous.

Actually, since the studies (I provided the links earlier) show a 2% projection, and there are over 125 million registered voters in the U.S. (using the actual voting numbers from 2016), that suggests 2.5 million disenfranchised voters. If you use the larger number (the number of eligible voters in the U.S. by age and citizenship), the number is 235M, so the disenfranchisement level is 4.7M. That means the range of disanfranchised voters, as supported by the studies, is between 2.5 and 4.7 million people. All of this to avert a known 1088 thousand incidents of voter fraud, and an unknown and unestablished number if voter fraud incidents, most of which are not solved by a VoterID system.

To all of this you assert outrage and disagreement - but I haven't seen you support ANY of that with an actual, peer-reviewed study.

[carpedm9587]

yes it has always been so. Heck at one time you had to prove you owned land to vote. You have always had to prove your citizenship to vote. from the beginning.

Apparently not, Sparko. I needed to provide two pieces of mail with me local address on them, from "known" sources (e.g., power bill, credit card bill, etc.). That was all that was required for me to register. No one has ever demended of me, in 40 years of registering, "proof of citizenship."

[carpedm9587]

I wonder - seriously - how many of these "disenfranchised people" would be perfectly happy exercising their RIGHT to stay home and not vote, were it not for the liberals needing their votes at the polls to keep themselves in power. I wonder what that actual number would be.

Wouldn't that be true for both parties?

[carpedm9587]

I wonder how many actually do stay home while they "vote" at the polls to keep the democrats in power.

Speculation with, AFAICT, no actual data to support the suspicion.

Come on, Sparko - you're better than this...

[Cow Poke]

Wouldn't that be true for both parties?

I don't really see "the right" rushing into minority communities gathering up the "disenfranchised" to get them to vote. I think it's fairly common knowledge that these folks would vote Democrat.

[Sparko]

I can introduce you to many people who have never flown and never rented. The government has several temporary IDs that can be used to file taxes, and they are liberally used. The fact is, Sparko - for all of your "examples" and protestations, you have not shown any research to suggest that the studies I pointed to, which point to a 2% impact on voter access, are wrong. You just have a lot of anecdotes. An anecdote is not an argument. If you're going to prove the data/research wrong, you will need corresponding research to show that the numbers should be different.

Do any of those people NOT have an ID or need one in their lives? or should I just tell you "those are examples not arguments?" - you just tossed out anecdotes yourself. I didn't use any anecdotes, I used an example of reasons why people need IDs. There are a lot MORE reasons.

Do I need to point them all out to you so you can nitpick them away too?

You like to nitpic away anything anyone says instead of just accepting their point in total. The point is people need IDs to function in their lives. You can't get by without one.

And this is an assertion without substance. The data...please? Where is the research that supports this position?

Since you are the one claiming there are millions of citizens running around without IDs I think it is up to YOU to show who they are and why they don't have IDs. Show me some that don't fit those categories.

Actually, since the studies (I provided the links earlier)

yeah the study which you can't be bothered to find the link to? Still waiting on that.

show a 2% projection, and there are over 125 million registered voters in the U.S. (using the actual voting numbers from 2016), that suggests 2.5 million disenfranchised voters. If you use the larger number (the number of eligible voters in the U.S. by age and citizenship), the number is 235M, so the disenfranchisement level is 4.7M. That means the range of disanfranchised voters, as supported by the studies, is between 2.5 and 4.7 million people. All of this to avert a known 1088 thousand incidents of voter fraud, and an unknown and unestablished number if voter fraud incidents, most of which are not solved by a VoterID system.

so a study that "projects" and "predicts" and yet can't actually show these disenfranchized voters? right.

To all of this you assert outrage and disagreement - but I haven't seen you support ANY of that with an actual, peer-reviewed study.

neither have I from you. and statistical analysis based predictions don't cut it.

[Sparko]

Apparently not, Sparko. I needed to provide two pieces of mail with me local address on them, from "known" sources (e.g., power bill, credit card bill, etc.). That was all that was required for me to register. No one has ever demended of me, in 40 years of registering, "proof of citizenship."

Examples are not evidence. isn't that what you like to say?