Obama: Maybe it's time for mandatory voting

yes I read it. once again. if 75% of people accused of smoking pot got exonerated would that mean no one actually smokes pot?

 

NSA Tracking Device

 

Have the cellular system for that

 

Already in place.

 

So, essentially, you've created an unassailable argument in that, no matter what the examination of it is, there's always the unknown element that isn't, and can't, be accounted for, but exists?

 

First paragraph of that link:

"We found no evidence of fraudulent vote casting or vote buying, even in the states most contested in the Presidential campaign. We also found that states with strict voter ID laws are no different from others in the (non) existence of fraudulent voting. Based on this evidence, strict voter ID requirements address a problem that did not exist in the 2012 US election."

 

Do we really know what that is?

 

you disagree that it's unquantifiable?

 

If you read it they disregarded a percentage of the results because they thought they must have rushed through the survey. And the margin of error was high. So basically they found voter fraud and disregarded the results because they were looking disprove voter fraud . Read it

 

Read it. Your summary here doesn't quite jibe with what they wrote or you have a pretty selective and self-serving analysis of this interpretation. Plus, you chose one aspect of one of the many studies and determined that this one must be the correct one, as you interpret it.

 

To a perfect degree? Probably not. But, it's certainly possible to make a qualified analysis if whether or not it's a problem. I'm saying that you are trying to create some kind of "everybody knows" argument that has no real basis in fact or reality.

 

this is the only study that involved a survey. every other one is looking into cases of voter fraud.

and how is that my interpretation?


Nevertheless we still observed thirteen respondents
in the control group (2.5%) and twelve respondents in the treatment group (2.5%) claiming
to have participated in the maximum four and ve activities, respectively

In other words, most of those choosing the maximum value in the list experiments, whether
in the treatment or control groups appear to be rushing to complete the survey as fast as
possible, not revealing actual behaviors. If we omit the eight individuals reporting \5" but
clearly rushing to nish the survey then the (unweighted) lower bound on the prevalence of
casting a fraudulent vote falls under 1%.

 

no, I'm suggesting your theory that it's clearly far less than 1% of the vote is incorrect. I agree it's not a huge problem. I disagree it never happens.

 

The problem is that I have actual research on my side instead of "I know two people...".

 

It would mean it isn't as popular as some claim. I know it isn't as popular in Colorado or even Denver as outside perception of it is. It is just not underground here.

 

That was just one point they made and you missed the part where they said it was obvious they were filling in the survey in that manner because every answer was the same, just like a kid rushing to get through the ACT and marking "c", among other things.

 

you do not have actual research on your side. the only research you have posted that actually attempts to get a real number showed 2.5%.

 

You bring up an interesting point, but keep in mind those sample sizes are woefully inadequate statistically.

 

I've already conceded I don't think it's a huge problem. under no circumstances do I think it's "significantly" less than 1% of the vote though.

 

yes shocking that they decided that the results that didn't meet their premise are invalid.