On the bright side, Bricker, [del]can’t[/del] shouldn’t complain if ‘liberals’ disbelieve Bricker’s stated motivations and ascribe ‘obviously’ true (and conveniently atrocious) motivations to any position he holds.
After all, he wouldn’t want to be accused of [del]liberal[/del] conservative hypocrisy.
You forgot mine, too, to another of your rhetorical gambits. No wonder your views of “liberals” is so negative; your memory is highly selective.
So am I still an ilk? Or are Max and I supposed to exchange secret decoder rings? What will the rest of the Board think of me? Oh gosh, now I just don’t know how to act! :dubious:
Parthol has it right. People don’t respond because it sounds like a rhetorical question challenging a belief they don’t hold. And because it was already thrashed out in this thread back in 2012. Your memory is either extremely poor, or marvelously selective.
I’m not a conservative, so no.
I personally think the article merits discussion, but it seems not today.
I’d be happy to discuss it, at least superficially. At first glance:
The study relies on self-reporting, which is a problem right off the bat;
The study then extrapolates that the percentage of noncitizens (among those who self-reported) who have voted in their sample is typical across the noncitizen population as a whole; and
The study cherry-picks a few very close recent elections and speculates how low a percentage of the noncitizen population would have to vote to swing it, such percentages being lower than the speculative percentage mention in item 2. Among other assumptions made, it’s presumed that noncitizens largely vote a specific way, in this case, pro-Democrat.
Basically, the study is heavily flawed - in addition to relying on self-reported data, the numbers are pretty small (“339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010”), so I wouldn’t personally be inclined to take it seriously. I can picture the issue being far more accurately studied, and maybe noncitizens are indeed voting in significant numbers. I don’t personally think it’s a good idea to punish citizens in larger numbers to remedy this.
So, you got these non-citizens who will readily admit to committing a Federal crime for no discernible benefit. Apparently, several times. To this guy, who is going to publish stuff about it. Draw attention to it, whole point.
He must have sincerely promised that he wouldn’t rat them out, no matter how much he was threatened, or offered large sums of money.
Definitely don’t want them to vote. That stupid, they vote Republican.
What a shocker.
Fortunately, the people that matter don’t agree with you, and they have acted.
The people who matter? Would that be the people who vote, or the people who just wish they could?
It seems like that exact argument could be used to support slavery, poll taxes, segregation, bans on interracial marriage, and a whole lot more.
It has.
I don’t think it should be taken as gospel or that it was hard science, but there is enough there that makes me think there could be a real issue - something to be investigated rather than dismissed. I personally am against voting by illegal or undocumented immigrants, or anyone else who is legally ineligible.
The examples of close elections with Franken and others were particularly apt.
It’s not normally an area that I’m very concerned about so I’ve left this thread pretty much alone thus far.
Another “neener neener neener” response, Bricker? I guess anything else would tax your limited repertoire. I’ve already observed that statistical analysis is another of your weak points, so I guess I’ve no business being surprised at your taunts from Fort Childish.
You see evidence, you reject it.
That’s how you roll.
Then you announce that your views are what the country should adopt.
The country doesn’t care.
Life is good.
I’m not sure how many people you’ll find who are FOR non-citizens voting (though there may be some debate over legal eligibility among citizens). I vaguely recall one poster indicating support, and I suppose I’ve written something along the lines of not seeing it as that big a deal; certainly not enough of one to “remedy” by causing problems for a larger number of citizens.
Heck, I’ve suggested in this thread several possible strategies to improve the quality of the voter rolls (ie all eligible citizens and only eligible citizens listed). I’m just not aware of any corresponding plans among Republicans, and there’s the problem - a half-assed approach intended for a half-assed result; not improved service to all, but selectively reduced service to some.
To be honest, if everyone who could possibly be disenfranchised by voter ID laws voted for anti-Voter ID law candidates, it wouldn’t matter. Because voter ID laws are not just popular, they are widely popular. As in 75% popular. So I guess it’s those people (the majority of voters) who matter.
I see and specify the limitations of this particular piece of evidence. As a rational adult, I’m willing and able to analyze evidence presented to me, rather than accept or reject it blindly. I can’t help but notice that you offer no commentary on my analysis other than your neeners.
You’re STILL attempting the "you want to overthrow “democracy” bit? You’ve really lost it, haven’t you?
Investigation seems like a good idea. I’m as against non-eligible voters voting as the rest of you. I wonder how it could go about, though, when there’s the inherent issue (as Bryan brings up) that we’re looking into something where those being studied have a lot of reasons not to declare themselves. And on the other side of things, presumably we’d need those who are eligible but don’t have documentation to provide that documentation to prove it. It’s a weird situation.
I guess chortling like a smug anus is a way to go when losing an argument.
I don’t see the attraction, but hey, it’s not like you’ve got much else.
I mulled it over and went back for a second look at Bone’s cited article. The numbers involved are actually smaller than I might have first implied. From their table:
Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens 2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)
So they’re extrapolating an estimated turnout among noncitizens (6.4%) based on an estimate of 21 (self-reported) occurrences. Notably, there’s no information that I can see breaking this already small number down into absentee voters (which would not be prevented by ID laws) and at-poll voters, though there is this:
So three-quarters of some fraction of 21 people (maybe as many as 38) could meet the ID standards anyway. Further, the assumption that noncitizen voters favour Democrats is based on:
So 80% of 21 (or 38) noncitizens voted for Obama. That’s 16 to 24 votes, and no indication if they were all in one electoral venue or across several.
The article states:
…but the link goes to the CCES welcome page (on my computer, anyway) and not to any specific study of noncitizen voters. I’m sure the original data is there, but I’ll leave it to others to find.
The article does link to another article, who abstract is:
That’s interesting, though I’m not going to pay $19.95 to read the whole article. I hope whatever sample set they used was larger than the one described above.
How can you possibly believe I am losing the argument, when you don’t know what my argument is?