Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than Voting-Age Citizens

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't the opposite assumption just as wrong?

 

#Russia

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't the opposite assumption just as wrong?

 

Of course the possibiltiy for error in BOTH directions exists.

 

That is why any study like this has to show some estimate of precision. A county had 102% registered to vote? Is that +/- 5%? 10%? 

 

They are stating two numbers have a difference (# of registered voters vs. # of voting age citizens) without providing any statistical analysis. The # of voting age citizens is an estimate, so they need to report some sort of indication of a statistical analysis (margin of error, confidence interval...I'm not a statistician so I can't say which one specifically would be most appropriate, but they need something).

 

As I said at the beginning, it is unlikely to mean that the counties with the largest difference (San Diego at 138%, damn guys get your act together) aren't significant, but it may very well take their list of 11 down to 5 or less depending on how they came up with their numbers.

[IAMX 3,055]

Only way to know for certain is to verify voters with ID every time.

 

But hmm, some people seem to have a problem with voters providing ID despite their cries for election integrity. Can't put my finger on why. 

 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Only way to know for certain is to verify voters with ID every time.

 

But hmm, some people seem to have a problem with voters providing ID despite their cries for election integrity. Can't put my finger on why. 

 

We don't need to know for certain. We just need to know how confident their estimate is. Statistics is very complicated, but the fundamentals should be easy to grasp.

 

There is really no point in talking about the issue regarding being registered to vote vs. actually voting yet. The data they have presented would never fly in any peer-reviewed setting so a discussion on limitations is pointless until we have proper methodology.

Edited August 7, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

We don't need to know for certain. We just need to know how confident their estimate is. Statistics is very complicated, but the fundamentals should be easy to grasp.

 

There is really no point in talking about the issue regarding being registered to vote vs. actually voting yet. The data they have presented would never fly in any peer-reviewed setting so a discussion on limitations is pointless until we have proper methodology.

Well then, feel free not to discuss if you don't think it matters. Unless your idea is that because you don't think its discussion worthy the rest of us shouldn't discuss either.

Edited August 7, 2017 by IAMX

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'm still waiting for any of the other thousands of cases of "suspected" voter fraud to be proven. I'm sure it's coming soon.

 

And you conservatives get on the Dems for beating this Russian thing to death? How long have you been banging this voter fraud drum with absolutely no success, two or three decades?

Edited August 7, 2017 by Teddy B

[Teddy B 17,252]

Wait, I just found the latest case of proven voter fraud.

 

 

Quote

 

Iowa woman who tried to vote for Trump twice pleads guilty to election misconduct

A woman from Des Moines, Iowa, pleaded guilty to election misconduct for attempting to cast two separate ballots in the 2016 presidential election for then-Republican nominee Donald Trump. 

According to the Associated Press, Terri Lynn Rote, 57, entered her plea for the felony charge on June 27. Court documents state that lawyers affiliated with the case are recommending Rote face up to two years of probation with community service on the side. 

Rote told police why she tried to vote more than once. She was convinced her first vote for Mr. Trump would be manipulated and changed to a vote for then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. According to her statement to the police, Rote believed Mr. Trump's claims about widespread election rigging. 

Sentencing is set for August 15. Rote was arrested in October at a satellite voting station when she attempted to cast the second ballot. According to police records reviewed by the Washington Post, Rote's first early-voting ballot was issued at the Polk County Election Office.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/voter-fraud-case-tied-to-iowan-woman-voting-for-trump-twice/

 

LOCK HER UP!!

[bcking 3,157]

28 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Well then, feel free not to discuss if you don't think it matters. Unless your idea is that because you don't think its discussion worthy the rest of us shouldn't discuss either.

My "idea" is that data presented without methodology and without an estimate of error isn't worth discussing by anyone. It is bad data. It shouldn't be made public without it actually being constructed in a well thought out way that is reproducible by a third party.

 

So yes. None of us should discuss it. It isn't news worthy unless Judicial Watch provides their methods and some statistical analysis. In its current form it just leads to less well educated people taking the raw numbers and assuming they are absolutely true. This thread is the perfect example of that.

[jg121783 3,921]

2 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

You are assuming the was a 'study", this is judicial watch

Yes Judicial Watch. An organization that has a track record of winning cases in Federal court.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, jg121783 said:

Yes Judicial Watch. An organization that has a track record of winning cases in Federal court.

Need a peer reviewed study to confirm.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, IAMX said:

Need a peer reviewed study to confirm.

Or just some data

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

My "idea" is that data presented without methodology and without an estimate of error isn't worth discussing by anyone. It is bad data. It shouldn't be made public without it actually being constructed in a well thought out way that is reproducible by a third party.

 

So yes. None of us should discuss it. It isn't news worthy unless Judicial Watch provides their methods and some statistical analysis. In its current form it just leads to less well educated people taking the raw numbers and assuming they are absolutely true. This thread is the perfect example of that.

Well then, bye Felicia! The discussion shall commence without your approval.

Edited August 7, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

Yes Judicial Watch. An organization that has a track record of winning cases in Federal court.

Quote

Most of its lawsuits have been dismissed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

nope.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

Yes Judicial Watch. An organization that has a track record of winning cases in Federal court.

Because no one is above the law!

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Yes Judicial Watch. An organization that has a track record of winning cases in Federal court.

I know next to nothing about them honestly and their reputation shouldn't matter. They may very well have the methodology reported somewhere, as well an estimate of error. Brietbart just didn't show it and didn't even link to their study/data. It may be out there and they may have checked all the proper boxes off when putting together their study. I just haven't seen it here. If you can point me to it that would be great. Hopefully they had the good sense to include that information in their "letter" otherwise they could just be making up numbers.

 

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Need a peer reviewed study to confirm.

Humour and sarcasm are usually pretty good ways to mask something that you are uneducated or uncomfortable with. You seem to have difficulty understanding the core concepts of statistics and why it would be important, so it makes sense you would resort to sarcasm about scientific rigor. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by bcking