170 Registered Voters in Ohio�s 12th District Listed as Over 116 Years Old

[shunyadragon]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...116-years-old/

I wonder what the chances are that each of them voted Democrat?

Do you have reference confirming whether they were Democrat or Republican?

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I am. But if you go back and read the entire thread, you will find a place where the idea of grandfathering came up and I noted that I thought it was a good idea that I had not previously considered, and my mind changed about how to best approach this problem. You may have missed that post.

Yeah, I think it got to that point where everybody was saying the same things over and over, and I kinda tuned out. I was meaning to ask if that was an evolution, and it appears so. And that's cool.

Yes, but at no worse levels than we have now (which have not been shown to be very substantial), and grandfathering eliminates the problem of voter disenfranchisement (which HAS been shown to be substantial). If a proper VoterID system is implemented, and a proper registration process, the rolls will eventually "clean themselves" as a result. So opportunity for voter fraud will reduce year by year as duplicates and deaths get culled by a properly working system, and as voters age and die off.

Unfortunately, I really don't think either party wants to actually solve any problem that can be used as a wedge to smear the other party.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, I think it got to that point where everybody was saying the same things over and over, and I kinda tuned out. I was meaning to ask if that was an evolution, and it appears so. And that's cool.

Unfortunately, I really don't think either party wants to actually solve any problem that can be used as a wedge to smear the other party.

Unfortunately...I fear you may be correct.

[Roy]

Also, Breitbart never claimed that the 170 voters in Ohio were evidence of fraud, they merely stated it's a problem that needs to be addressed:

Unsurprisingly, that extract stops shortly before Breitbart did claim that they were evidence of fraud:

So go ahead, Dimbulb, cite something directly from the Breitbart article and then show how what they reported is actually wrong.

See above. Those voters live in the district, they don't "live" in the district.

[Mountain Man]

Unsurprisingly, that extract stops shortly before Breitbart did claim that they were evidence of fraud:
See above. Those voters live in the district, they don't "live" in the district.

Since you and Dimbulb are batting for the same team then we'll call this strike two. Breitbart is simply pointing out a security hole in the system and suggesting, reasonably, that it could be used to commit fraud; they never said or implied that it's evidence of actual fraud. Sorry, but you twisting their words into saying what you want them to say doesn't count as them saying.

Do you want to try for strike three, or do you want to save face and walk away from the plate?

[carpedm9587]

Since you and Dimbulb are batting for the same team then we'll call this strike two. Breitbart is simply pointing out a security hole in the system and suggesting, reasonably, that it could be used to commit fraud; they never said or implied that it's evidence of actual fraud. Sorry, but you twisting their words into saying what you want them to say doesn't count as them saying.

Do you want to try for strike three, or do you want to save face and walk away from the plate?

[Mountain Man]

Like your liberal comrades, you complain about "spin" and inaccuracies, but never bother pointing out any errors in the article itself.

"The article is factually correct, but I don't like how it's presented," is a pretty weak criticism, if it even qualifies a criticism.

Does this count as strike three?

[carpedm9587]

Like your liberal comrades, you complain about "spin" and inaccuracies, but never bother pointing out any errors in the article itself.

"The article is factually correct, but I don't like how it's presented," is a pretty weak criticism, if it even qualifies a criticism.

Does this count as strike three?

Pretty much as expected. You can count it any way you wish, MM.

My hope is, deep down, you are a rational enough person to know something is wrong with Breitbart and how it reports news, and that someday that cognitive dissonance will cause you to re-examine your use of it. But it is entirely possible I am wrong about that. I know some friends on the left who are rabidly devoted to "The Daily Beast" and "Jezebel" and any attempt to get them to see how badly skewed their news source is likewise falls on deaf ears. They say pretty much the same things you do, because the far left media outlets use the same tactics of selective facts, badly skewed language, and obscuring the line between opinion/analysis and news.

[Pluto]

Good point. No, that was for month/day only. For a 70 year window, you get to a better than 50% chance at 188 people. So all you need is a group of 188 people with the same name nationwide, and you have a 50/50 chance of false positives for each name! If you go to the last four digits of the social security number, the 50/50 point is 223 people (there are 10,000 possible combination of this number). On a whim, I did a search on my name on a couple of people search sites, and came up with between 100 and 250 names (in the U.S.), depending on which site I used. My name is not a very common one because my mother left the "a" out of "Michel." When you look at more common names, the numbers go through the roof. I also took a look at my phone book, and there are 3 people with my name listed - for an area with about 100K people. If that ratio were to hold, it suggests there are some 10,000 people in the U.S. with my name. Even if each area of that size had 1/10th the density, it's still 1,000 people.

Unless the comparisons are made with a completely unique identifier (e.g., the entire social security number), and I have never found a study that uses that basis, the studies are rife with error.



I actually make money on this when I teach a math class. Anytime the class has more than 25 people in it, I bet the class $5 for each person who wants in on the bet. At 26 people, the odds are almost 60/40. The odds go to 70/30 at 30 people, and 80/20 at 34 people. At 50 people, it's 97/3. So it's a pretty decent bet. People look around the room and think, "26 people, 365 days, no way!" It's a great object lesson in probabilities.

Can you point to where you got this? I've been trying to replicate it, but I haven't gotten the number involving the soc security number to match. I've been using the collision probability formula found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem, which seems sensible. It works for the birthday/year number(setting d to 365*70), but the soc sec number(setting d to 365*70*9999) is really low(on the order of .01% for 223 people), and no other combination (such as 9999 and 70 or 9999 and 365) matches it either. What am I missing? Messing around a bit, I found 36500 for d produces ~50% for 223 people, which seems like an odd number to choose. Is it only the last two digits of the soc security number that are checked? I'm rather confused now.

[Mountain Man]

Pretty much as expected. You can count it any way you wish, MM.

My hope is, deep down, you are a rational enough person to know something is wrong with Breitbart and how it reports news, and that someday that cognitive dissonance will cause you to re-examine your use of it. But it is entirely possible I am wrong about that. I know some friends on the left who are rabidly devoted to "The Daily Beast" and "Jezebel" and any attempt to get them to see how badly skewed their news source is likewise falls on deaf ears. They say pretty much the same things you do, because the far left media outlets use the same tactics of selective facts, badly skewed language, and obscuring the line between opinion/analysis and news.

It would certainly help your case if you explained exactly how the article in question is unfairly biased, or what information they left out that would change the thrust of the story.

And for your information, I don't blindly trust everything I read on Breitbart, nor are they my sole source of information. I just like referencing them here because it triggers you liberals.

[Starlight]

My hope is, deep down, you are a rational enough person to know something is wrong with Breitbart and how it reports news,

I used to think MM must be getting financial gain out of spreading Breitbart links because I thought no one could possibly be actually that stupid as to actually believe it all. Then I got to know MM more.

[shunyadragon]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...116-years-old/

I wonder what the chances are that each of them voted Democrat?

I believe the question remains unanswered. Can you document whether they were Democrat or Republican?

[Tassman]

I used to think MM must be getting financial gain out of spreading Breitbart links because I thought no one could possibly be actually that stupid as to actually believe it all. Then I got to know MM more.

He's a stooge of the St Petersburg Troll Factory. It's obvious.

[Roy]

Unsurprisingly, that extract stops shortly before Breitbart did claim that they were evidence of fraud:

Since you and Dimbulb are batting for the same team then we'll call this strike two. Breitbart is simply pointing out a security hole in the system and suggesting, reasonably, that it could be used to commit fraud; they never said or implied that it's evidence of actual fraud.

They implied that 72 votes had been cast by persons impersonating dead voters. Actual fraud.

Do you want to try for strike three, or do you want to save face and walk away from the plate?

Balls.

[Roy]

It would certainly help your case if you explained exactly how the article in question is unfairly biased, or what information they left out that would change the thrust of the story.