Were voter's "really" disenfranchised?

otisptoadwater wrote: Calibration errors? Really?

My source is a valid as yours:

www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/north-caroli...es-to-gop-candidate/

The ghost of LJ speaks - "...fauxnews isn't an unbiased source of information..." Come on - stop dragging the same old tactics out of the liberal play book.

ZHawke wrote: I apologize if I mislead you. The article is anecdotal. It may or may not have some validity. I believe that's something the individual must come up with on their own. Personally? I believe the issue of Gerrymandering is more of a problem currently than is voter fraud. I do agree voter fraud exists in answer to your question. I just don't believe it warrants the attention it's getting and it may, in fact, be an excuse to try to disenfranchise legitimate voters who are now being denied in some cases from voting, some of whom have been born in the U.S. and have been voting all their lives only to be denied now.

OK, we agree voter fraud exits, but that wasn't my only question.

Do you agree the article I posted showed that the percentages of admitted non-citizens who are registered to vote based on surveys (over 14%) if true, is disturbing even if it's off by a few percent?

Do you agree that the article also showed that they verified from actual records that some non-citizens (a small number due to a small sample of the electorate) actually did vote?

Yes, they extrapolate to the larger electorate based on small numbers questioned, just as polls do, and the more you extrapolate the more the error can grow. But can you agree that it's possible, as the article suggests, that non-citizens voting can actually turn a very close election?

And now you are switching the topic to Gerrymandering??

otisptoadwater wrote: The ghost of LJ speaks - "...fauxnews isn't an unbiased source of information..." Come on - stop dragging the same old tactics out of the liberal play book.

Two things:

1. LJ is gone. Why do you, and others in this forum, keep bashing her with these kinds of comments?

2. That you label FOX News as "fauxnews" is indicative of a deeper meaning. If you're trying to convince me FOX News is unbiased, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than that.

pineinthegrass wrote: OK, we agree voter fraud exits, but that wasn't my only question.

Do you agree the article I posted showed that the percentages of admitted non-citizens who are registered to vote based on surveys (over 14%) if true, is disturbing even if it's off by a few percent?

Do you agree that the article also showed that they verified from actual records that some non-citizens (a small number due to a small sample of the electorate) actually did vote?

Yes, they extrapolate to the larger electorate based on small numbers questioned, just as polls do, and the more you extrapolate the more the error can grow. But can you agree that it's possible, as the article suggests, that non-citizens voting can actually turn a very close election?

And now you are switching the topic to Gerrymandering??

Again, the article you presented is anecdotal. If the figures presented were actually proven to be accurate, yes, I would be disturbed by them.

From the article:

There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error (emphasis mine), although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Also from the article:

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Bottom line from my perspective is, yes, it is possible for non-citizen voters to actually turn an election. The key operative word here is "possible".

And, no, I'm not switching the topic to Gerrymandering. I'm merely pointing out what I consider to be a logical fallacy in regarding voter fraud as being rampant without taking into consideration the ramifications of Gerrymandering, too.

ZHawke wrote: Again, the article you presented is anecdotal. If the figures presented were actually proven to be accurate, yes, I would be disturbed by them.

Anecdotal? Are you serious?

Here is the first definition I find using google for anecdotal...

an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/

adjective
adjective: anecdotal

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Hey, that article was at least based on research. Hopefully you can admit that.

The rest of what you posted until the end, was what I already pointed out. There can be error based on a small sample, just as in political polls.

ZHawke wrote: Bottom line from my perspective is, yes, it is possible for non-citizen voters to actually turn an election. The key operative word here is "possible".

And, no, I'm not switching the topic to Gerrymandering. I'm merely pointing out what I consider to be a logical fallacy in regarding voter fraud as being rampant without taking into consideration the ramifications of Gerrymandering, too.

OK, you agree it is possible, based on the article, that non-citizens could turn an election.

And I never said it is proven. Not that you answered my other questions. But if you really believe their statistics were "antedotal", then I don't know what else to say.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Can you get health care under the ACA without a proper ID?

I don't know. I know you asked the question, so do you have an answer to that one?

As a matter of fact I do, and an ID is required. In fact, I get my blood checked every month because I'm on blood thinners and an ID is required every time. Imagine a heath care system where you could just walk in and tell them any name you wanted, charge your visit to some poor slob with a massive ACA deductible.

So if an ID is required for health care, and health insurance is mandatory, then just think about all the poor helpless people who will be disenfranchised from getting health care because getting an ID is just too onerous.

pineinthegrass wrote: Anecdotal? Are you serious?

Here is the first definition I find using google for anecdotal...

an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/

adjective
adjective: anecdotal

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Hey, that article was at least based on research. Hopefully you can admit that.

Yes, it was based on research. Never said it wasn't. I focused on the part of the definition (yes, I looked it up, too, before I used the term) that addresses personal accounts thereby making the article anecdotal because the research was, in fact, based on a very small group of personal accounts for all intents and purposes. If the study were scientific, I'd place a whole lot of value in the results. The fact the authors of this study point out its inherent weaknesses diminishes its value from my perspective.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the article has no value. Believe me, I've been castigated multiple times by posters in these threads for what they deem as being deceptive in what I post. I don't believe I am, nor do I believe that is what you are attempting to do here. I just see the article you shared in a different way than you apparently do.

pineinthegrass wrote: The rest of what you posted until the end, was what I already pointed out. There can be error based on a small sample, just as in political polls.

There are also some who posit polls aren't meant to give a true "pulse" of what one can actually expect. Rather, they are intended to manipulate the results. I don't know if that's true or not, but given the results of this mid-term election I'd have to say even the pollsters didn't anticipate the Republican "landslide" if one wants to call it that.

pineinthegrass wrote: OK, you agree it is possible, based on the article, that non-citizens could turn an election.

What I agree with is that it is possible non-citizens voting can turn a "close" election. That's a very critical distinction in my view.

Rick wrote: As a matter of fact I do, and an ID is required. In fact, I get my blood checked every month because I'm on blood thinners and an ID is required every time. Imagine a heath care system where you could just walk in and tell them any name you wanted, charge your visit to some poor slob with a massive ACA deductible.

So if an ID is required for health care, and health insurance is mandatory, then just think about all the poor helpless people who will be disenfranchised from getting health care because getting an ID is just too onerous.

Thank you for that explanation. I truly did not know.

As for the comparison, I'd have to say we may be looking at apples and oranges. Voting is not mandatory. It isn't even written into the Constitution as a guaranteed right, although some would like to see an amendment that makes it so. Even the 15th Amendment doesn't absolutely guarantee the vote as a right: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv

Rather, it says, and I quote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

So I'm just not sure the comparison you are giving is valid.

I am just shaking my head.
Is it really that hard to understand that Americans are tired of this.
Reading this thread is just sad.

Disenfranchised?

I smell sour grapes.

I appreciate those who are sitting on the winning side of the election results being a lot more dignified about your gain that you have been treated in the past.
Classy.

I heard something today that struck a chord.

"The only thing that government can give you that does not come at the expense of someone else is FREEDOM!"

You now have my one political post of the year. Have a good night.

As for the comparison, I'd have to say we may be looking at apples and oranges. Voting is not mandatory. It isn't even written into the Constitution as a guaranteed right, although some would like to see an amendment that makes it so. Even the 15th Amendment doesn't absolutely guarantee the vote as a right:

Actually....voting is a privilege