Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Zero Tolerance]

Whew, my home state dodged a bullet there.

[guacamole]

Whew, my home state dodged a bullet there.

Hello new puppy. Welcome to tweb.

guac.

Wait...you joined in 2014? And have five comments?

[Cow Poke]

No - his horse and his wife were both named "Dale," silly!

For want of a comma, the kingdom was lost.

Commas, for whatever reason, not sure why, seem to be my downfall, as I use them WAY too prolifically, like I'm doing right now, as I type, in this sentence.

[Raphael]

Hello new puppy. Welcome to tweb.

guac.

Wait...you joined in 2014? And have five comments?

He had a LOT more before the Big Crash

[Sparko]

Sparko - I am providing evidence-based arguments. I'm not going to change that process because you don't happen to like it.



When your claim is "you have to have it," then I only need a single incidence of where you DON'T need to have it to refute the position, Sparko. For the scale of the problem, I point you to the studies I have now linked to multiple times. My anecdotes will not be sufficient to prove "scale."



Those are some examples...



I have now linked to it in four separate posts, Sparko. I'm not sure what exactly it is you're expecting of me. But here is is for a fifth time: https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...ter-fraud-myth



Since you clearly have not read even one of the linked studies - I don't see how you are in any position to rate them as "crap," Sparko. And given that response, you might not want to even waste your time with them. It seems doubtful that you are going to read them with an open mind. Why not simply say, "I'm not going to look and I have already made up my mind" and be done with it? Your arguments are certainly not enough to convince me - and if you have no desire to explore your own views with an open mind, just be done with it, man.



If you bother to scroll down the site, you will find links to well over a dozen studies related to the point.



I have summarized the points of the various studies, quoted the statistics, and applied them to the database argument that was provided earlier. I'm not sure what more you want. However, if you feel I am violating terms of service, then simply delete my posts, Sparko. You're a mod. You have that authority.



See my previous posts for my uses of the data within the studies.

again, linking to a "dozen studies" is against the rules. You and I know I am not going to do your homework and read a dozen or more "studies" that you think prove you right somewhere inside. That is argument by weblink and doesn't cut it. So if you want to pretend you have evidence that shows whatever you want to claim, you need to provide the quote from the study, and the cite to the portion of the study were we can verify it, and a link to the study. Not a link to "a dozen studies related to the point"

Not only that but you were going around claiming you had a study that 2% were being disenfranchised because of not having photoIDs. All you have linked to is "a dozen or more" studies that claim that there is no voter fraud going on. Two entirely different topics.

We are not going to play this game of "I already provided the evidence" - if you want to show that there are 2% of the voting population that cannot vote because they don't have photo ID then show something specific and show which people these are. Not some idiotic calculated statistic based on population and guesses. I want to know exactly who these people are who can't get photo IDs but are citizens and want to vote. These are the people we need to help get IDs.

[carpedm9587]

Commas, for whatever reason, not sure why, seem to be my downfall, as I use them WAY too prolifically, like I'm doing right now, as I type, in this sentence.

Allow me to clean that up for you:

Commas, for whatever reason (not sure why), seem to be my downfall. I use them WAY too prolifically, like I'm doing right now, as I type in this sentence.

[Cow Poke]

Allow me to clean that up for you:

Commas, for whatever reason (not sure why), seem to be my downfall. I use them WAY too prolifically, like I'm doing right now, as I type in this sentence.

Laughing hard. Go play on the freeway!

[Zymologist]

Allow me to clean that up for you:

Commas, for whatever reason (not sure why), seem to be my downfall. I use them WAY too prolifically, like I'm doing right now, as I type in this sentence.

comma.jpg

[Sparko]

Allow me to clean that up for you:

Commas, for whatever reason (not sure why), seem to be my downfall. I use them WAY too prolifically, like I'm doing right now, as I type in this sentence.

My English teacher said to use commas where you would take a breath if you were speaking out loud.

[One Bad Pig]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25552[/ATTACH]

My dad's pastor has a somewhat Shatnerian style of speaking.

[guacamole]

"standard comma"

I'm trying not to seize up right now.

[Zymologist]

"standard comma"

I'm trying not to seize up right now.

Personally, I much prefer the Oxford comma; I think it's clearer.

[carpedm9587]

again, linking to a "dozen studies" is against the rules. You and I know I am not going to do your homework and read a dozen or more "studies" that you think prove you right somewhere inside. That is argument by weblink and doesn't cut it. So if you want to pretend you have evidence that shows whatever you want to claim, you need to provide the quote from the study, and the cite to the portion of the study were we can verify it, and a link to the study. Not a link to "a dozen studies related to the point"

Not only that but you were going around claiming you had a study that 2% were being disenfranchised because of not having photoIDs. All you have linked to is "a dozen or more" studies that claim that there is no voter fraud going on. Two entirely different topics.

We are not going to play this game of "I already provided the evidence" - if you want to show that there are 2% of the voting population that cannot vote because they don't have photo ID then show something specific and show which people these are. Not some idiotic calculated statistic based on population and guesses. I want to know exactly who these people are who can't get photo IDs but are citizens and want to vote. These are the people we need to help get IDs.

OK - so let me put some information out there, to meet your request. I have not been saying "there is no voter fraud." There is. I HAVE been saying that the claim that voter fraud has occurred at statistically significant levels does not hold up on the basis of the database provided. 1088 incidences in a field of over 800M votes is not "statistically significant." It constitutes a 0.000136% rate. We can assume the incidence rate is higher, but in order to justify the disenfranchisement levels, it would have to show an incredible weighting, which is unjustifiable in the face of the evidence.

I have used the 2% mark because I considered it conservative. The reality isusually much more. A Brennan study (Citizens without Proof - http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/d...file_39242.pdf) found that 7% of U.S. adults lack ready access to documentation of citizenship. The number climbs to 12% for households with incomes below $25,000. For women, marriage complicates this, with 34% lacking documentation based on their current legal name (actually, the study shows 66% had access - so I'm extrapolating the number.

So my conservative 2%, which translates to over 2.5 million disenfranchised votes, is a towering figure compared to the 0.000136% documented cases in the database.

But now I will go further. Study, after study, after study, has found that incidence rates - not conviction rates - are only slightly higher than the conviction rates documented in that database. This paper overviews the topic (https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...er%20Fraud.pdf) and cites local study after local study (no national scale sstudy has been done to my knowledge) that shows the sources of these "fraud" incidences to be primarily due to:

• Errors in documenting votes in poll books (e.g. clerks putting checks by wrong names
• Errors in the registration books (e.g., typos in names or birthdates)
• Bad matching due to errors in data, partial matches, and the infamous "birthday phenomenon"
• Conflation of registraton data problems (e.g., dead people on roles, multiple registrations due to movement) with "voter fraud"

These all derive from the study listed above. That same study cites multiple studies that actually look at incidence levels of voter fraud - not just "conviction rates." No national study has been done (to my knowledge) but these referenced studies found incidence rates like:

• Missouri - 2000/2002 - documented incidence rate of 0.0003%
• New Jersey - 2004 - Research resulted in dual voting allegations: 4,397 voters twice instate, 6,572 voters voting in NJ AND another state. Almost all proved to be mistaken matches (same names, etc.). Eight were eventually shown to be "likely fraud," a documented incidence rate of 0.0002%.
• New York - 2002/2004 - researchers surfaced 1000 allegations of dual voting, of which two were substantiated, a documented incidence rate of 0.000009%
• Georgia - 2000 - Research resulted in 5,412 allegations of "dead people voting." Every single one was disproven - resulting in a 0% documented incidence rate
• Michigan - 2005 - 132 absentee ballots accused of "dead voters." All but eight were cleared and thew remaining eight were indeterminate. Even if all eight were assumed to be fraud, it represents an incidence rate of 0.0027% (one of the highest rates found)

The list goes one, but the pattern is fairly easy to discern. This 2012 study (https://www.dropbox.com/s/fokd83nn4x...eVote.pdf?dl=0) noed that the upper limit on actual voter fraud is 0.02% - one of the highest numbers I've seen, but even this paper emphasizes that this is the upper limit, including proper weighting.

Then there is the General Services Administration study that is actually a survey of other studies, which found, consistently, high impact levels of voter IDs requirements, and low incidence levels of actual voter fraud (https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf).

Their survey studies related to ID ownership rates showed that ID ownership rates ranged from 84% to 95%, translating to between 5% and 16% of voters who do not have access to an ID that can be used to verify citizenship. The ownership rates were disproportionate to minorites, with a differential of at least 4%. Costs for obtaining these IDs ranged from a low of $14.50 to a high of $58.50. The GSA also ran an "impact on turnout" study and found that turnout was impacted 1.9% to 3.2%. (downward) after the VoterID requirement was imposed (state-level studies in Kansas and Tennesee).

Study after study comes up with numbers that are within an order of magnitude of one other, and all with measured levels below 0.0027%, with weighting (as noted) placing a statistical upper limit at 0.02%. But no actual measurements have come within one order of magnitude of this upper limit.

The data is fairly clear - voter fraud is NOT happening at a statistically significant enough level to warrant the widespread disenfranchisement voterID laws have produced. The problem is exaccerbated by the fact that is disproportionately impacts the poor, which results in a disproportionate impact on minorities.

So I stand behind my position - Voter ID laws DO have a value if they make some part of the electorate "feel better" about the integrity of the election. If we're all willing to use tax dollars to implement these, I do not oppose it. I DO oppose voterID mandates that disenfranchise voters - and insist there is no justification for THAT. Implement the VoterID system - provide support for currently registered voters to gain access to these IDs in a defined reasonable period of time - THEN make the ID requirement a mandate. Republicans get what they want - without a negative impact on voter turnout.

(I do not have the time to proof my own post - so apologies for typos and grammar.)

[carpedm9587]

My English teacher said to use commas where you would take a breath if you were speaking out loud.

Strictly speaking - that's not a great rule. People pause differently, and that creates widely different punctuation uses. Commas should be used to separate the elements of a list, to isolate a qualifying clause, to isolate a leading adverb or yes/no, and to separate a quotation. There are a few other places, but those are the most common.

What trips people up most often is the qualifying phrase. There's a simple test for this: drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence and, if what remains is still a well-structured sentence, you did it right.

So if I put that test to that last sentence...

"drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence and, if what remains is still a well-structured sentence, you did it right."

...becomes...

"drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence and you did it right."

...which is a well-structured sentence. Some people mistakenly write...

"drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence, and if what remains is still a well-structured sentence, you did it right."

...but that becomes...

"drop out the qualifying clause from the sentence you did it right."

...which is NOT a well structured sentence - so the comma was in the wrong place.

Sorry, my wife says I get pedantic now and then. Occupational hazard

[carpedm9587]

Laughing hard. Go play on the freeway!