Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Sparko]

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.)

sigh.

I don't care about voter fraud. You keep moving the damn goal posts. We are discussing photo ID and such requirements for voters and whether that is a reasonable request. YOU have been claiming that to demand such a requirement would be a hardship and would disenfranchise 2% of the voters. You claimed some study proved this. Yet when it comes down to it, your study is all about voter fraud, not people that would not be able to vote because they can't get ID.

This slight of hand isn't going to work Carpe. Stick to the topic.

I said that asking for ID to vote is a valid thing to ask for. I also said that most people already have an ID and require one just to function in this society. That you need to have proof of citizenship or a green card just to get a social security number for instance which nearly everyone has. So if you are a citizen and have a SS# you can get an ID to vote because you already have the necessary documentation.

I also said that the very small number of people who can't meet those requirements are those that slip through the cracks of society, like the homeless or those who deliberately don't have ID like criminals or illegals. And that there will always be such people and I can live with that.

You came along saying I was just using "anecdotes" (huh?) and that there ARE many people who are being disenfranchised and you had a study that said 2% of them were. Yet whenever I ask for this proof, you go back to studies that show there is no voter fraud. what the heck?

The one study you do refer to above is just some summary of their results. A telephone poll? of 900 people? how do they know if they were actually citizens? We know nothing about the poll, other than the people had telephones. And they admitted "weighting" the survey to get the results they wanted.

[Roy]

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

So, what, do asth,ma suffer,ers, marathon, finish,,ers and people, under, severe,, stress,, do,,,?

[Cerebrum123]

So, what, do asth,ma suffer,ers, marathon, finish,,ers and people, under, severe,, stress,, do,,,?

They use the Shatner comma.

[Cow Poke]

They use the Shatner comma.

How come nobody ever talks about the Joe Hannon comma anymore?

[carpedm9587]

sigh.

I don't care about voter fraud. You keep moving the damn goal posts. We are discussing photo ID and such requirements for voters and whether that is a reasonable request. YOU have been claiming that to demand such a requirement would be a hardship and would disenfranchise 2% of the voters. You claimed some study proved this. Yet when it comes down to it, your study is all about voter fraud, not people that would not be able to vote because they can't get ID.

This slight of hand isn't going to work Carpe. Stick to the topic.

I said that asking for ID to vote is a valid thing to ask for. I also said that most people already have an ID and require one just to function in this society. That you need to have proof of citizenship or a green card just to get a social security number for instance which nearly everyone has. So if you are a citizen and have a SS# you can get an ID to vote because you already have the necessary documentation.

I also said that the very small number of people who can't meet those requirements are those that slip through the cracks of society, like the homeless or those who deliberately don't have ID like criminals or illegals. And that there will always be such people and I can live with that.

You came along saying I was just using "anecdotes" (huh?) and that there ARE many people who are being disenfranchised and you had a study that said 2% of them were. Yet whenever I ask for this proof, you go back to studies that show there is no voter fraud. what the heck?

The one study you do refer to above is just some summary of their results. A telephone poll? of 900 people? how do they know if they were actually citizens? We know nothing about the poll, other than the people had telephones. And they admitted "weighting" the survey to get the results they wanted.

Sparko - I know you guys love this "moved the goal posts" phrase - but I have done nothing of the sort. The data about disenfranchisement is in my post, as well as the link to the studies that support it. These are a sampling. There are many others. I also added the data about voter fraud incidence because it is the other side of the equation necessary to make the case I am making: that there is not adequate evidence of voter fraud to justify the documented disenfranchisement level, and VoterID will not actually solve most documented cases of voter fraud. Ergo, VoterID laws, if they are implemented, should be implemented in a non-intrusive fashion.

At this point, I am repeating myself over and over. It is becoming fairly clear that your position is entrenched, AND you have no countering evidence. Because I make it a practice to adopt evidence-based positions, my position will remain as is. You are free to do as you wish. Unless you ask me an explicit question to which I should respond, I promise to read your subsequent post (should you choose to make one), but otherwise will leave the last word to you.

[JimL]

Sparko - I know you guys love this "moved the goal posts" phrase - but I have done nothing of the sort. The data about disenfranchisement is in my post, as well as the link to the studies that support it. These are a sampling. There are many others. I also added the data about voter fraud incidence because it is the other side of the equation necessary to make the case I am making: that there is not adequate evidence of voter fraud to justify the documented disenfranchisement level, and VoterID will not actually solve most documented cases of voter fraud. Ergo, VoterID laws, if they are implemented, should be implemented in a non-intrusive fashion.

At this point, I am repeating myself over and over. It is becoming fairly clear that your position is entrenched, AND you have no countering evidence. Because I make it a practice to adopt evidence-based positions, my position will remain as is. You are free to do as you wish. Unless you ask me an explicit question to which I should respond, I promise to read your subsequent post (should you choose to make one), but otherwise will leave the last word to you.

And you will continue to repeat yourself over and over. These people already know that voter fraud is a republican scam, thats why the scam is targeted at people who vote democrat. But they actually like the idea, support and defend it, because they know that without the disenfranchisement of democrat voters they have little chance of winning elections.

[Sparko]

Sparko - I know you guys love this "moved the goal posts" phrase - but I have done nothing of the sort. The data about disenfranchisement is in my post, as well as the link to the studies that support it. These are a sampling. There are many others. I also added the data about voter fraud incidence because it is the other side of the equation necessary to make the case I am making: that there is not adequate evidence of voter fraud to justify the documented disenfranchisement level, and VoterID will not actually solve most documented cases of voter fraud. Ergo, VoterID laws, if they are implemented, should be implemented in a non-intrusive fashion.

At this point, I am repeating myself over and over. It is becoming fairly clear that your position is entrenched, AND you have no countering evidence. Because I make it a practice to adopt evidence-based positions, my position will remain as is. You are free to do as you wish. Unless you ask me an explicit question to which I should respond, I promise to read your subsequent post (should you choose to make one), but otherwise will leave the last word to you.

so basically you have no direct evidence or knowledge of anyone who is being "disenfranchised" other than some poll by a group who set out to prove what they already believed and is using statistical trickery to prove it. Got it.

[carpedm9587]

And you will continue to repeat yourself over and over. These people already know that voter fraud is a republican scam, thats why the scam is targeted at people who vote democrat. But they actually like the idea, support and defend it, because they know that without the disenfranchisement of democrat voters they have little chance of winning elections.

JimL - as I have noted, I have no objection to VoterID requirements per se - for the reasons I cited. The collective insistence of the right on implementation without taking care to avoid voter disenfranchisement is suspect, in light of the disproportionate impact on the two parties. But I am not comfortable attributing that motivation to any particular individual. Some people undoubtedly truly believe voter fraud is a problem, and it is the basis for their position. I disagree with them, but I do not start from a position that any given person is being dishonest or disengenous.

[carpedm9587]

So, what, do asth,ma suffer,ers, marathon, finish,,ers and people, under, severe,, stress,, do,,,?

Now THAT is funny...

[JimL]

JimL - as I have noted, I have no objection to VoterID requirements per se - for the reasons I cited. The collective insistence of the right on implementation without taking care to avoid voter disenfranchisement is suspect, in light of the disproportionate impact on the two parties. But I am not comfortable attributing that motivation to any particular individual. Some people undoubtedly truly believe voter fraud is a problem, and it is the basis for their position. I disagree with them, but I do not start from a position that any given person is being dishonest or disengenous.

Well yes, but they only believe it because they want to believe it, not because there is evidence of it. All of the evidence and court rulings have shown it to be a republican scam concocted by conservative think tanks and enacted by republican legislators in order to disenfranchise democrat voters. Those doing it know its a scam. For those taken in by it, it's called cognative dissonance.

[Cow Poke]

For those taken in by it, it's called cognative dissonance.

Um... that would be cognitive dissonance, and you understand it about as well as you can spell it.

[Cerebrum123]

How come nobody ever talks about the Joe Hannon comma anymore?

Who?

[Cow Poke]

Who?

EggZACKly!

[Raphael]

Who?

he means the johannine comma

[Cow Poke]

he means the johannine comma