Christianity Today Op Ed

[Teallaura]

I'm using LPoT numbers. If all studies were within the MoE she should have said that *all* the studies were inconclusive. Her post implied statistical significance in some of the studies.

W/o the numbers, we don't know that - and given the low side, even if we knew it was significant, it's still below the threshhold for conclusive study. All of which means no, neither 3% nor .5% are large statistical numbers.

And I could say that it's more plausible that people are less likely to vote because they don't feel the need to cancel out all the illegal voting. We can both make things up. That's why hard data, even in a soft science, is preferable to your and my intuition about a group of people we, or at least I, am not a member of.

Baloney - electorial politics 101. Tons of research has shown that people are less inclined to turn out if they doubt the fairness of the ballot - for any reason.

Now, speaking as a political scientist with the degrees to prove it, there is no such thing as 'hard data' in survey research. We are asking questions and trying to fairly represent the answers which doesn't come in consistently quantitative little packages like physical attributes. We can't weigh the person and see how they vote. We can only ask, often suppositionally, and hope we've done the job well enough that our measure means something in the real world.

Which is why numbers have to be taken with large grains of salt and a knowledge of how we actually get them (you don't need a degree in Poli Sci but you do need to understand the basics of methodology). And even then, the pesky voters go and change their minds!!!!

So we get statistics and a brand new glossary - then do it all over again. No 'hard data', just good methodology, careful reasoning and a heck of a lot more work.

It'd be a lot easier if we could just take air pressure readings...

Yes, another one. I was chewed out by you for assuming LPoT's answer was 'no' and I was chewed out by LPoT for assuming her answer was 'yes'.

Then just ask for clarification instead of affirmation.

I don't want to assume the thoughts of people who see the world so differently from me because my assumptions will necessary be guided by my bias and part of why I came back to this board was to talk with people who could help me challenge my biases.

I believe you but you're undermining yourself. Join me in condemning thowing out bathwater because it might have a baby in it - this is grossly unfair as it presumes facts not in evidence.

Voter ID doesn't suppress voting - and it does not present a significant obstical to most voters for a given election, and no obstical at all for subsequent elections. I say that as some one who's followed the issue - and who has had to actually get a voter ID here in Alabama. The registrar was literally thrilled - she'd rarely had opportunity to do one. I ended up voting provisionally but only because I'd just moved. Technically, that means I was disenfranchised because the totals weren't close and my vote was therefore not counted.

It was in every election since.

So Lil may (ask her) agree in principle but not with your practice, yet you keep demanding that she concur with your affirmation. I wouldn't agree with your affirmations either - they imply a unity of practice that doesn't exist even when agreeing in principle.

There are people on this board for whom I believe their honest answer would be "Republicans winning is ALL that matters." Fine, but those are people I *cannot* respect. I try not to people too many people in that category if I can help it.

I'd argue there are more that believe that way in the Democrat camp. The real question is why they think a Democrat win is so important - tribalism is a stupid and overly simplistic answer. What is it really that they believe the Democratic party will do or represents? Are they really just committed to the team, or do they fear the other guys (fear being a favorite Dem tactic) - or is it something else entirely?

You wanna paint with a broad brush, you get broad strokes. You want detail, then get a finer brush. Your affirmation technique works for team building when there is no real disagreement; it fails utterly at building understanding.

[lilpixieofterror]

You have not been able to accurately reflect back most of my comments over the last year at least. What can I conclude but that you are missing some neurons upstairs? But feel fee to demonstrate I'm wrong. Keep in mind that will require more logical thought and far less ranting. Ball's in your court.

[DivineOb]

Teallaura, I'm sure in your political science study you have become aware that wholesale voter fraud does. not. happen. That link is to the Heritage Foundation of all places and records only 1241 cases covering YEARS.

It does not happen in numbers large enough to pass a even single new law. The burden is on the side who insists new laws are necessary (at least that's what I hear every time more are slaughtered by ammosexuals).

Baloney - electorial politics 101. Tons of research has shown that people are less inclined to turn out if they doubt the fairness of the ballot - for any reason.

Are you suggesting that the totally inconsequential problem of voter fraud in recent years has a measurable impact of voting enthusiasm? We *know* that stricter voter requirements severely impacted, of all people, native Americans. (What a disgusting and shameful display from the former party of Lincoln.) Show me data that the impact on those native Americans is matched by the voter fraud these laws are alleged to solve.

Methodology discussion.

Then let's track down these studies and take a look. I'm a computer scientist but I've published papers in top conferences and journals so I assume I could follow along.

Then just ask for clarification instead of affirmation.

Help me out here. How could I have phrased things better?

I believe you but you're undermining yourself. Join me in condemning thowing out bathwater because it might have a baby in it - this is grossly unfair as it presumes facts not in evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Voter ID doesn't suppress voting - and it does not present a significant obstical to most voters for a given election, and no obstical at all for subsequent elections. I say that as some one who's followed the issue - and who has had to actually get a voter ID here in Alabama. The registrar was literally thrilled - she'd rarely had opportunity to do one. I ended up voting provisionally but only because I'd just moved. Technically, that means I was disenfranchised because the totals weren't close and my vote was therefore not counted.

If upon study we found that more than a few thousand people who had the right to vote were unable to because of recently passed laws, a number seemingly far in excess of the voter fraud problem, would it impact your perception?

So Lil may (ask her) agree in principle but not with your practice, yet you keep demanding that she concur with your affirmation. I wouldn't agree with your affirmations either - they imply a unity of practice that doesn't exist even when agreeing in principle.

Again, not sure what this means. Are you suggesting that someone might disagree with the statement "Voter suppression should be opposed in all cases." for *good* reasons?

I'd argue there are more that believe that way in the Democrat camp.

Why do you feel that way?

The real question is why they think a Democrat win is so important - tribalism is a stupid and overly simplistic answer. What is it really that they believe the Democratic party will do or represents? Are they really just committed to the team, or do they fear the other guys (fear being a favorite Dem tactic) - or is it something else entirely?

Again, no idea where you're coming from on this. Can you help understand where you got these ideas from?

You wanna paint with a broad brush, you get broad strokes. You want detail, then get a finer brush. Your affirmation technique works for team building when there is no real disagreement; it fails utterly at building understanding.

What possible *good* reason is there to disagree with the statement "Voter suppression should be opposed in all cases." ?

[Mountain Man]

One of the problems is that under the current system and current laws, voter fraud is actually very difficult to detect. I mean, look at the last election in Michigan where every county that Hillary won had significant discrepancies (more votes cast than registered voters; sealed ballot boxes containing far fewer ballots than they're supposed to) but an investigation could not find any evidence of fraud, largely because the records needed to prove fraud simply don't exist.

[oxmixmudd]

It's not any of the above pix. A great deal of what is happening is based on your general disdain for the person posting. You are more interested in slamming the author than you are the content. And the poor quality of your responses reflect that.

[oxmixmudd]

One of the problems is that under the current system and current laws, voter fraud is actually very difficult to detect. I mean, look at the last election in Michigan where every county that Hillary won had significant discrepancies (more votes cast than registered voters; sealed ballot boxes containing far fewer ballots than they're supposed to) but an investigation could not find any evidence of fraud, largely because the records needed to prove fraud simply don't exist.

Or there was no fraud and these anomalies you mention have other causes or dont really exist and are artifacts of your source's bias.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ncts/95363314/

And this happened exclusively in precincts that Hillary won. What a coincidence.

[Teallaura]

Teallaura, I'm sure in your political science study you have become aware that wholesale voter fraud does. not. happen. That link is to the Heritage Foundation of all places and records only 1241 cases covering YEARS.

It does not happen in numbers large enough to pass a even single new law. The burden is on the side who insists new laws are necessary (at least that's what I hear every time more are slaughtered by ammosexuals).

Er, even if I accepted this - really, really don't becuase studying a negative is a LOT harder than proving one - literally, so what? Most states wanting to pass such laws have and given the current Court make up only the truly egregious wouldn't pass constitutional muster (which is how it shouuld be). The horse is grazing in the neighbor's clover - little late to close the barn.

To revoke those laws you (general) need to show disenfranchisement - which there has been no real sign of and studies are going to face the same problem - prove an intangible negative.

The better evidence is in social media - that's where we'd expect to see the protest by affected voters and it simply isn't showing up in significant volume.

Are you suggesting that the totally inconsequential problem of voter fraud in recent years has a measurable impact of voting enthusiasm? We *know* that stricter voter requirements severely impacted, of all people, native Americans. (What a disgusting and shameful display from the former party of Lincoln.) Show me data that the impact on those native Americans is matched by the voter fraud these laws are alleged to solve.

Sigh, proving the negative again. You don't know how consequential voter fraud is - no one does. You vehemately oppose the only method of actually getting reliable data - voter ID.

But no, fraud isn't at issue - the broader category is suppression. The thing is, people aren't stupid - and they get a sense when they are only valued for their vote or they face stigma for voting contrary to expectation - the latter being a big issue in the black vote. Monolithic voting is far more complex than 'we all look alike so we all vote the same' and that's been true everytime we've seen it. Look at California.

We're seeing the cracks start to show (they aren't new) in the black vote. Part of that is likely blacks feeling empowered by a greater confidence in the ballot. That needs serious study but I see pretty clear indicators of it. So at the moment, I am inclined to suspect that voter ID has improved black voter participation. The data certainly doesn't support the contrary.

Then let's track down these studies and take a look. I'm a computer scientist but I've published papers in top conferences and journals so I assume I could follow along.

They aren't that hard. You're actually likely to have more trouble with the 'soft data' idea - most folks from mathematical or 'hard' science backgounds do. It boils down to computer programs, despite appearances to the contrary, can't decide to 'help' like people can. People are fascinating - and a royal pain to study.

Help me out here. How could I have phrased things better?

Suggestions:
Do I understand you correctly that <insert assumption here>?
I don't follow - are you saying <insert>?
Just to clarify, you said <insert>. OR you meant <restate point> OR you agree that <insert>.

Specific:
So, you agree it's bad when Republicans do it just like when Democrats do? Gerrymandering is just wrong?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Posting prematurely - be back shortly!

... Back...

Your affirmations are broad and assume full agreement.

If upon study we found that more than a few thousand people who had the right to vote were unable to because of recently passed laws, a number seemingly far in excess of the voter fraud problem, would it impact your perception?

No, not as stated. Look at what you wrote - see the assumption? That's the part in contention, but you're asking me to agree anyway.

Again, not sure what this means. Are you suggesting that someone might disagree with the statement "Voter suppression should be opposed in all cases." for *good* reasons?

Yes, because there ARE good reasons to suppress voting in some populations: children, lunatics, non-citizens and felons are all validly suppressed categories.

Borrowing from my one, long ago course in BASIC - ya know how lines of code have to be phrased properly to get a correct output and the stupid machine doesn't just know you meant for it to quit running once it found the solution? Same thing.

Only computers aren't going to use it against you.

Why do you feel that way?

Watching the news and debating here.

Again, no idea where you're coming from on this. Can you help understand where you got these ideas from?

No... not until I post and can read what you are responding to. Let me answer the last bit and come back.

What possible *good* reason is there to disagree with the statement "Voter suppression should be opposed in all cases." ?

Case study: Uniontown, Al. Allowing felons to both vote and influence voting has done nothing good. Felons don't vote for law enforcement - they vote against. When there are enough felons to influence elections the results are destructive to say the least. Hint: stay out of Uniontown.

Your phrasing is absolute - and absolutely foolish.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's not any of the above pix. A great deal of what is happening is based on your general disdain for the person posting. You are more interested in slamming the author than you are the content. And the poor quality of your responses reflect that.

One thing about your replies CP. I often do not know exacltly what perverse side street you'll take with them down. But the one thing I always know for sure is that whatever side street it is, it will have no resemblance to any possible legitimate reaction to what was said.

Do you realize that your constant insults and disdain for Charles and Jiml when they stand for the things Christ taught us in the Sermon on the Mount makes a mockery of those same teachings?

To rogue:

See - this is what so clearly characterizes responses from the peanut gallery. The collective goal of this group of people is to denigrate, smear, slam, or otherwise gain some sort of 'victory' over whoever they happen to disagree with. The goal is not to engage on any objective level without at the very least first making sure that person who dared to have another opinion knows first they and slime are in one way or the other related.

To MM:

Breitbart and Fox are not 'balance', they are mostly pro-Trump propaganda. People that get the majority of their information from them are, when it comes to Donald Trump, in a little bubble where the real world is excluded and they can hear what makes the happy.

[Teallaura]

Argh - it wouldn't post the new edit.

I'll get back to you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Er, even if I accepted this - really, really don't becuase studying a negative is a LOT harder than proving one - literally, so what? Most states wanting to pass such laws have and given the current Court make up only the truly egregious wouldn't pass constitutional muster (which is how it shouuld be). The horse is grazing in the neighbor's clover - little late to close the barn.

To revoke those laws you (general) need to show disenfranchisement - which there has been no real sign of and studies are going to face the same problem - prove an intangible negative.

The better evidence is in social media - that's where we'd expect to see the protest by affected voters and it simply isn't showing up in significant volume.

[Sam]

Exactly - which means no conclusion can be drawn from such numbers. Elections, unlike surveys, have no MoE. They aren't samples - they are pop counts.

Supposedly, we're talking about studies, not surveys, which means we wouldn't be seeing a margin of error but rather looking for statistical significance.

Even so, there's no poll in the world where you get a result within the margin of error and determine that no conclusion can be drawn: you'd look for replication to reduce the margin of error but the poll/survey is giving you useful information!

But again, not what we're supposedly talking about.

--Sam

[Sam]

Welp, I'd say that probably does it for me; Comcast has been giving a lovely "bot network" false positive with a helpful number to call from a HTTP-injection Javascript file supposedly located somewhere on Comcast's domain. Of course, no one at the official Comcast support network knows about the number or understands what's going on but it's currently blocking me from using insecure HTTP sites (like TWeb).

And since I can hotspot on mobile from exactly one place in the house and this isn't really shaping up to be a useful experience, I will have to say goodbye until I can find someone at Comcast I can shake some sense into about injecting Javascript as a "security measure" or I can figure out what's infecting my router.

I may hotspot back in if LPoT cites the studies she's referencing. Always a sucker for those things.

Good health to all,

--Sam

[oxmixmudd]

Wow. Your little vendetta thing runs deep. In each of the above cases there is a lengthy context of insults either to me or to others that precipitated the response. And post that get strong after an issue like the ones you've lifted here, I am always reluctant and sad to have been pushed to the point they were necessary.

But they do exist, and so a person like yourself can always twist them into something they are not, as you have done in this post.

[Teallaura]

Supposedly, we're talking about studies, not surveys, which means we wouldn't be seeing a margin of error but rather looking for statistical significance.

Even so, there's no poll in the world where you get a result within the margin of error and determine that no conclusion can be drawn: you'd look for replication to reduce the margin of error but the poll/survey is giving you useful information!

But again, not what we're supposedly talking about.

--Sam

What makes you think that? Most poli sci studies ARE survey based research. And you'd be looking at both unless you're working with election totals.

Any result in the MoE is inconclusive - period. Results bordering the MoE are also sometimes inconclusive - depends on the test. Micropolls should be very suspect here.

And you're fantasizing if you think replication comes into play - polls are always cross sectional - they can never be repeated.

In this instance, the research HAS TO BE done by survey - it's the only way to know why eligible non-voters didn't vote. To be research grade it also has to have a full sized sample - no micropolls will do. This is why there's not a ton of such research - it ain't cheap to do real surveys.