Study Says Large Numbers of Illegals Voting (vote, work, Washington)

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by lvoc;37028566

But any time you end up with 5 examples out of a 50,000 data base I would be very careful.

And if the sample size on a poll gets too low I would question it as well. 12 guys claim they will vote for Jeb Bush? I would be skeptical if it was extrapolated to the Presidency in 2016[/quote

.

Good point. In 2008, the first town to report right at midnight(Upper NH, if I recall) went McCain 8, Obama 4. Was it a good microcosm of the overall race?

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by southbel

Well this is both disturbing and should prompt action if borne to be true. I've always had more of an issue with our loose registration system and while I am in favor of Voter ID, it's useless if a person can register without needing to prove neither citizenship nor identity. The biggest flaw in our system is at registration and needs to be strengthened. Let's face it, simply signing an affidavit to say you are a citizen is not sufficient in the world today where fraud is rampant (e.g. credit card fraud, identity fraud, tax fraud, etc, etc).

Jaw-Dropping Study Claims Large Numbers of Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. | National Review Online

The only thing jaw dropping is the source you quoted, don't you have anything better than the CCES?

[southbel]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

The only thing jaw dropping is the source you quoted, don't you have anything better than the CCES?

Oh good, attack the messenger. That's always a valid argument.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

The only thing jaw dropping is the source you quoted, don't you have anything better than the CCES?

Don't hold your breath waiting for Huffpost to print this.

[Huckleberry3911948]

How else do 67% of the population get voted down every election

[bobtn]

Such a study if done by a full-time polling firm, with far more substantial quantities polled, could be useful. None exist, though.

[southbel]

This is why I can only take P&OC in doses. Y'all have fun with the study/non-study/poll/non-poll. I'm over it. I thought it was thought provoking information. That was all.

[bobtn]

It might be. It might not be. That is why I stick to mainstream polling organizations which have done this work for many decades..continuously.

The huge gap b/w the 2008 and 2012 projections they alluded to would never occur with credible polling techniques.

My hunch is this so called "poll" was done "on the cheap", rather than the way it should be done.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by southbel

Oh good, attack the messenger. That's always a valid argument.

So you used a right wing link from the National Review that interpreted the CCES data, could you point us to the actual summary or the statistics that indicate this is jaw dropping.

[southbel]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

So you used a right wing link from the National Review that interpreted the CCES data, could you point us to the actual summary or the statistics that indicate this is jaw dropping.

Look up a couple of posts. I did point to the actual data. CCES is a Harvard run study. Hardly fly by night. It's Harvard interpreted and YouGov/Polimetrix administered. Perhaps that will alleviate these 'concerns' that they're not professional enough. So yes, these surveys were performed by professional pollsters and simply interpreted and designed by academic teams (highly qualified ones at that). Does that meet your litmus test? Whatever that is? The link was an article talking about the study - that is all. But I'm pretty sure an earlier link by another poster shows Washington Post did an article on it too if you want to read that instead. Perhaps that somehow will make it 'legitimate' in your eyes.

All of the information you seek on CCES is here - CCES
And if you want to know about YouGov, here you go - Home. And here's what YouGov says about CCES - CCES