2018 mid-term election

[dasmiller]

No, you just frantically Googled something trying to prove me wrong. The paper proved legal residents and illegal aliens do vote in US elections.

No, it made no claim about illegal aliens voting. The paper claimed that a few percent of non-citizens voted, and acknowledged that of all the respondents to the study (voting and non-voting), some may have been illegal aliens. It did not make the leap from "some of the respondents may have been illegal" to "some of the respondents were illegal, and they voted."

 

[jimbob]

Getting upset about political ignorance with lips affixed to the arse of a president who would fail a junior high civics exam.

Applause

 

[LSSBB]

Why do you people insist on assuming that governing is about binary choices? It's possible to want to control our borders and enforce our immigration laws humanely.

Of those people who oppose Trump, who has said they want open borders besides Bob?

Probably just me, however like Bob I am a Libertarian.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you people insist on assuming that governing is about binary choices? It's possible to want to control our borders and enforce our immigration laws humanely.

Of those people who oppose Trump, who has said they want open borders besides Bob?

Nuance is something Trump supporters don't understand. To them, you are either for "The Wall" or for open borders.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Funny how those two go together.

Gee I wonder if that's why the Dems here want illegal aliens voting, porous borders and sanctuary cities? Almost seems like some sort of plan, hmmm.

Thanks for clearing that up. I mean they sure seem insistent on bringing illegals here - it makes total sense now.

I'm sorry. Your post is unbelievably ignorant. How long do you suppose it takes to become a citizen so you can vote? Well over a decade.

There is no evidence to support John Fund's lies, Trump's lies and gawd knows whoever else is believing and spreading the lie that non-citizens are voting. It's pure dishonest fear mongering.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...illion-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/t...presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

There is a single study widely circulated that claims to have found thousand of illegal votes in 2008. It's behind a paywall so we can't see anything about methodology, and it's been debunked by other researchers and Snopes:

https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illegal-immigrants-2008-election/


I'm going to bet you know all this but choose to believe the fear mongering.

Ooooouuu, scary brown people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The ignorance of non-Americans knowledge of US politics is appalling. What's even more appalling is they feel privileged enough to lecture Americans on US politics. Reading ISF posts is absolute cringe.

"Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

OK here is the single study without the paywall. Given the results have not been repeatable and the methodology was challenged (see above) I'm not expecting much but I will read it with an open mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the Snopes link above:

The Washington Times is reporting that a web site named “JustFacts.com” has concluded that a widely-discredited 2014 study arguing up to 2.8 million non-citizens voted in the 2008 presidential election (based on the extrapolation of 38 survey responses from people who may have voted as non-citizens) has been unfairly debunked by “liberal fact checkers” and that, in reality, the number could be as high as 5.7 million....

Using this data, some modeling, and error analysis, the authors concluded that between 7.9 percent and 14.7 percent of non-citizens voted in the 2008 elections. They then simply applied this to the entire non-citizen population in the United States. The findings are as crude as they are controversial:

The bottom line:

If extrapolating to a number based from Internet survey response data from a pool of 339 non-citizens into the millions sounds problematic to you, you are not alone.

I've read the article and the criticisms and if the study had valid results you can bet the entire GOP of witch hunters would be repeating the study and tracking the criminals down. But they are not. Instead they are repeating over and over in the echo chamber this one study as proof all those non-citizens were voting.

 

[kellyb]

OK here is the single study without the paywall. Given the results have not been repeatable and the methodology was challenged (see above) I'm not expecting much but I will read it with an open mind.

Here's a rebuttal:

http://web.stanford.edu/group/bps/c...y-picking-low-frequency-events-in-surveys.pdf

Author affiliations:

a Harvard University, PI CCES, United States
b YouGov, United States
c University of Massachusetts, Amherst, co-PI CCES, United States

This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES.
The example for this analysis is Richman et al. (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.

Fourth, the probability that the observed voters in the non-voter
category are in fact citizens who have been misclassified is nearly 1.
The expected number of citizens who are identified as non-citizens
is 19 (0.1 percent times 18,878). The sample contains 105 persons
who are identified as non-citizens in 2012. Assuming that the vote
rate among citizens is 0.7, then the expected number of citizen voters
who are classified as non-citizens is 13. Hence, we expect in a sample
of 105 non-citizen persons that there would be 13 people who are in
fact citizen voters but misclassified as non-citizens. The actual
number of observed is only 4 (3 in 2010 and 1 in 2012). This is much
lower than the expected number. Hence the probability that these 4
cases are in fact citizens identified as non-citizens is nearly 1.2

This problem arises because the survey was not designed to
sample non-citizens, and the non-citizen category in the citizenship
question is included for completeness and to identify those respondents
who might be non-citizens. We expect that most of that
group are in fact non-citizens (85 of 105), but the very low level of
misclassification of citizens, who comprise 97.4 percent of the sample,
means that we expect that 19 “non-citizen” respondents (16.5
percent of all reported non-citizens) are citizens who are misclassified.
And, those misclassified people can readily account for the
observed vote among those who reported that they are non-citizens.

 

[Baylor]

I'm sorry. Your post is unbelievably ignorant. How long do you suppose it takes to become a citizen so you can vote? Well over a decade.

There is no evidence to support John Fund's lies, Trump's lies and gawd knows whoever else is believing and spreading the lie that non-citizens are voting. It's pure dishonest fear mongering.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...illion-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-noncitizen-voters-20161025-snap-story.html

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/t...presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

This is what's called a Snow Job.

There is a single study widely circulated that claims to have found thousand of illegal votes in 2008. It's behind a paywall so we can't see anything about methodology, and it's been debunked by other researchers and Snopes:

It hasn't been debunked. Also learn what sci-hub is and how to use it. It's the current year after all.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Evidence of voter fraud is still lacking, the one study cited is nonsense and tries to use a margin of error as evidence of non-citizens voting. You aren't tricking anyone here, Baylor, try another tactic.

 

[varwoche]

This is what's called a Snow Job.

Obviously your post lacks substance and I'm pretty sure it will not sway one reader one iota. Plus fyi, the practice of Random Capitalization that's all the rage these days doesn't compensate; it doesn't make your post punchy/edgy/witty.

 

[kellyb]

It hasn't been debunked.

Yes, it has.

 

[The Shrike]

Here's a rebuttal:

Author affiliations:

Notable: Richman et al. (2014) cite three papers by Ansolabehere, who is lead author on the 2015 paper discrediting Richman et al. 2014. Ouch.

 

[LSSBB]

Deleted... wrong thread

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Probably just me, however like Bob I am a Libertarian.

And me and I am not a Libertarian.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is what's called a Snow Job.

It hasn't been debunked. Also learn what sci-hub is and how to use it. It's the current year after all.

I'll make you a deal. I'll learn what sci-hub is (there, done... since I already knew that) and you learn what the scientific method is.

Richman et al has been debunked. They make assumptions and extrapolations with no empirical evidence to support them. A single tiny error in a mass participation poll can skew the results immensely and they chose to ignore the possibility of simple human error if a respondent said they were not US citizens but then said they voted.

This has been debunked by all but the people who believe, say, that there are No Go zones in Europe.. (I had this queued up to respond to yesterday but Ginger and Kelly did all the legwork so I didn't have to - at least I thought so. Apparently having your "facts" shoved down your throat has no effect on the willfully blind.)

 

[Sideroxylon]

And me and I am not a Libertarian.

I am not a librarian.

 

[Steve]

I am not a librarian.

I am not a Liberian.

 

[Darat]

""It is now officially clear I won the constitutional 'one-person, one-vote' first choice election on Election Day that has been used in Maine for more than one hundred years."

It's also now officially clear that the new system worked as intended.

Hey perhaps he could do a joint legal suit with Clinton, after all it is clear she also won the constitutional "one-person, one-vote" first choice on Election day.....

 

[Baylor]

I'll make you a deal. I'll learn what sci-hub is (there, done... since I already knew that) and you learn what the scientific method is.

I'll make you a deal. I'll learn what the scientific method is (there, done....since I already knew that) and you read the paper you are commenting on.

They make assumptions and extrapolations with no empirical evidence to support them. A single tiny error in a mass participation poll can skew the results immensely and they chose to ignore the possibility of simple human error if a respondent said they were not US citizens but then said they voted.

Oooooo....if you read the paper you'd realize they didn't ignore it. They wrote an appendix about it (seriously, how lazy can you get.) They provided evidence that the respondents did answer accurately. Since getting the last word is not part of the scientific method (see told you I knew it) there was no need for them to respond to something they already debunked.