50 voters fraud ......

Rumor is also that over 800K illegals attended Trump inauguration .....

I feel the same way every time someone quotes JohnyClips.. I normally ignore JoushaMo because he's proven himself to be useless, but sometimes It's just too much to not pick(on) the low hanging fruit..

:1orglaugh

and here we go again :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

a representative democracy is still a democracy you idiot :1orglaugh

trump was democratically elected

/end thread

:1orglaugh

I just read an article that says this number came from a report that discover three million legal residents didn't understand the question correctly and listed themselves improperly as a "non resident".

While we have no idea how Phillips arrived at his claim that 3-million noncitizens voted, people who have made similar claims in the past have cited a 2014 report that claims 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010 midterm congressional elections.

That report was based on data from a Harvard survey of people. But the data was flawed, which created flaws in the subsequent report.

The authors of the survey say a small percentage of respondents, who are citizens, accidentally misidentified themselves as noncitizens on the survey. This is because the respondents didn?t read the question carefully and accidentally selected the wrong response to the question.

Fact-check: Did 3 million undocumented immigrants vote in this year's election? | PunditFact

It's stunning that the President of the United States spits out facts and figures without researching them first. He has the entire United States Government at his disposal - I am confident someone at the White House can research this crap for him.

Trump was appointed by 306 elites in the Electoral College and lost the vote by the American people by 3 million votes. You disagree? This is very simple.

I know you live in a Monarchy with a king and queen, but America is different, where citizens vote for a president, and no matter how many people want one to win, the electoral college can overturn the will of the people.

careful, since you live like a scarcely showering gypsy you are seen as a foreigner by bladewire, and he despises foreigners!

What a Loser!!

Trump looks like Angry Orange with a tie on and a shitty comb-over hairdo.

Trump still lost the popular vote because he is sooo unpopular!!!!!!

FACT: trump was democratically elected.

get used to it and thank the awake citizens of the US on your bare knees you're not in WWIII already, because that's a fact if Clinton the war monger was elected :thumbsup

This one is a bit trickier, but again, it's a non-story.

Three professors at Old Virginia U have looked at a study (CCES) that queried people BEFORE THEY VOTED on who they intended to vote for and then came back later to survey them about the election. The survey data HAVE NOT BEEN DELIVERED YET.

The pre-election survey (CCES Pre-Election Survey, 2016 | CCES) was released in November, and covered about 84k "likely voters." There is no mention of non-citizen voters, just unregistered voters. Is this the number our esteemed professors are looking at and extrapolating from?

I have emailed the head of the study to ask about the non-citizenship data. Hopefully there is a response coming in the media, as their research is being cited as a source without it even being released yet.
(Announcing the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study | CCES)
"Schedule
The study will be fielded in October and November 2016 (pre- and post-election waves). Survey data will be delivered by March 2017, and data matched to the voter files will be delivered in July 2017."

crosscheck program eliminated over 500,000 eligible voters.

Trump has already talked about invasion and he's only 7 days into the job :thumbsup

Do you have ceremonies with the monarchy in the Netherlands? Like all citizens have to kiss the queens ring once a year? Serious question

When I travel, I shower everyday. They have these neat inventions called gyms which have national chains with locations all over the country..

Amazing $40/month and I can go to a gym pretty much anywhere.. I realize you probably live in a village were you have to walk in un-plowed snow to get your daily bread allotment, but we have it much nicer in the USA.

"eligible"? sounds to me like it eliminated 500k fraudulent votes, a good start, but I'm sure it didn't catch them all... especially considering that system checks only "duplicate" votes, and does nothing at all to check citizenship/eligibility of voters...

Fucking shitlib meltdown up in this bitch :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

so what do you do that requires you to travel like this? florida huh? sounds like your scamming trump grannys out of their retirement funds.

slippin jimmy!

:1orglaugh

This is very interesting .... but way to smart for the alternative facts crowd that resides here ....

well no one knows because they won't release the list, so it could be anything. you can pretty much guarantee that a lotof eligible voters weren't able to vote because they share a same name.

52% voted against her :2 cents:

54 % voted against him :2 cents::2 cents:

what's interesting about it? a study based on polling/surveys, asking people about their criminal activity? yea, I'm sure people's involvement in criminal activity wouldn't be under-reported at all...

"hello, may I speak to Jose Gonzalez?
... Yes, what can I help you with?
I'm from USF doing a study on voter fraud can I ask you a few questions?
... Sure
Are you a US citizen?
... hmm, kinda, hmm, well, technically no, only my cousin is... but I'm here legally, I swear!
Great, did you vote in the current election? keep in mind that voting by non-citizens is considered felony election fraud punishable by up to 10 years in prison and then instant deportation....
.... *silence*
Is that a 'No', sir?
... *incoherent mumble*
I'll mark you down as a 'No', thank you for participating, have a good day..."

yea, very interesting study, the interesting part is how did they manage to trick 6% or whatever of illegal voters to tell the truth... :1orglaugh

Three days ago it was between three million people and 30 thousand. Lol... Right wing nuts.

You just get more attractive every day.

The head of the CCES study replied to me! She says:


Thank you for your email. The organizers of the CCES addressed this topic in a piece that can be found via the link below:

The Perils of Cherry Picking Low Frequency Events in Large Sample Surveys | CCES

If you are interested in seeing the datasets, they are all published online through Dataverse; it may be easiest to begin with the links at the left-hand side of the above-linked page and search from there. Thank you again, and I hope that it helps to clarify things.

Best regards,

Liz

----------------------

That page is from 2014 and states "The example for this analysis is Richman, Chattha, and Earnest (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."

So, not only is the Richman study from 2014 and therefore based on a completely different election cycle than Trump's, it is biased and incorrect.

Yet again, this story is FALSE and MISLEADING: Hillary Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, bolsters Trump argument, study finds - Washington Times

Do your fucking homework before trying to pull one over on the public. Jesus.

Do you think people tend to under-report, over-report, or accurately report criminal activity during polls? Do you think that effect would be lower or greater when faced with "high stakes" questions, like voter fraud, which is a deportable offense?

Why lie?

This is why polls are anonymous. They are used to collect statistics, not information on individuals. There are also margins of error taken into account that allow for lying/misunderstanding questions/mistake answers/errors in reporting. That's one of the first things we learned in stats class, actually.

Please read the full article for a breakdown of exactly Richman's conclusions: The Perils of Cherry Picking Low Frequency Events in Large Sample Surveys | CCES

"Importantly, the group with the lowest likelihood of classification errors consists of those who reported being non-citizens in both 2010 and 2012. In this set, 0 percent of respondents cast valid votes. That is, among the 85 respondents who reported being non-citizens in 2010 and non-citizens in 2012, there are 0 valid voters for 2010. [1]"

"Richman and colleagues offer interpretations of their results based on predicted vote rates of non-citizens and the share of that group of all voters. Their calculations incorrectly assume that the validated vote of those who reported being non-citizens each year is an unbiased estimate of actual non-citizen voting rates. Our analysis indicates that all three of those cases are nearly certainly citizen voters who are misclassified as being non-citizens. Hence, their predicted vvote rates of non-citizens in fact reflect the behavior of citizens."

"Stepping back from the immediate question of whether the CCES in fact shows a low rate of voting among non-citizens, our analysis carries a much broader lesson and caution about the analysis of big databases to study low frequency characteristics and behaviors. Very low levels of measurement error are easily tolerated in samples of 1,000 to 2,000 persons. But in very large sample surveys, classification errors in a high-frequency category can readily contaminate a lowfrequency category, such as non-citizens. As a result, researchers may draw incorrect inferences concerning the behavior of relatively rare individuals in a population when there is even a very low level of misclassification."

----------------

I see noone is addressing the fact that the Richman paper is analysing the Obama election and not Trump's at all. His allegations of voter fraud are for the 2012 election cycle!

But Jesus is their copilot.. This "fake news" site is owned and operated by a Religious organization. I looked them up when a previous 100% bullshit story was pushed by them, and was re-posted here by the GFY Red Hats..

They actually have a real world presence in DC with a building, but these are the types of organizations brainwashing the Right Wing..

https://www.google.com/maps/place/36...!4d-76.9550326

"The Cooperative Congressional Election Study was conducted online by YouGov from October 4th to November 6th"
CCES Pre-Election Survey, 2016 | CCES

- so even if the poll was designed to be "anonymous", the poll taker has no guarantee that the poll is indeed "anonymous"... (it's relatively easy to track someone down based on ip address)

- then there are numerous "sampling biases" with the fact that the poll was "online"...
.... it's certainly not accurate statistic of the population - includes only internet users
.... it includes only those willing to participate
.... etc

let me ask you a hypothetical question...

imagine you under-reported your taxes by $100k last year by using some shady tactics that would land you in jail for 5 years if caught
a. would you go to some online "anonymous" poll to answer questions about "tax evasion"?
b. if you did, on a scale from 1 to 10, how likely do you think you would be to answer truthfully about your recent criminal activity?

So you are saying that the poll is too flawed due to its biased self-selection of respondents? In that case, Richman's study is irrelevant, since it is an erroneous conclusion that is based on a flawed and unuseable data set. So... ? If Richman is wrong and the study is wrong, then WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR VOTER FRAUD?

I wouldn't call the data set "unusable", just have to be more careful about performing statistical analysis on it and reaching conclusions based on the results...

but some conclusions can still be drawn from it, for example that 6% or whatever he found to illegally vote is likely the lower bound of the actual fraud... so at LEAST 6% of illlegals vote... as the biases could only reasonably be expected to exclude "criminals", legal voters would have little reason to opt out of the poll or to lie...

No. You can't have it both ways. Is the data flawed because the respondents lie and self-select, OR can you use the data to draw conclusions?

IF you accept the data is relevant to your cause, then I will direct you back to the article:

"We begin with an example. Suppose a survey question is asked of 20,000 respondents, and that, of these persons, 19,500 have a given characteristic (e.g., are citizens) and 500 do not. Suppose that 99.9 percent of the time the survey question identifies correctly whether people have a given characteristic, and 0.1 percent of the time respondents who have a given characteristic incorrectly state that they do not have that characteristic. (That is, they check the wrong box by mistake.) That means, 99.9 percent of the time the question correctly classifies an individual as having a characteristic?such as being a citizen of the United States?and 0.1 percent of the time it classifies someone as not having a characteristic, when in fact they do. This rate of misclassification or measurement error is extremely low and would be tolerated by any survey researcher. It implies, however, that one expects 19 people out of 20,000 to be incorrectly classified as not having a given characteristic, when in fact they do.

Normally, this is not a problem. In the typical survey of 1,000 to 2,000 persons, such a low level of measurement error would have no detectable effect on the sample. Even in very large sample surveys, survey practitioners expect a very low level of measurement error would have effects that wash out between two categories. The non-citizen voting example highlights a potential pitfall with very large databases in the study of low frequency categories. Continuing with the example of citizenship and voting, the problem is that the citizen group is very large compared to the non-citizen group in the survey. So even if the classification is extremely reliable, a small classification error rate will cause the bigger category to influence analysis of the low frequency category is substantial ways. Misclassification of 0.1 percent of 19,500 respondents leads us to expect that 19 respondents who are citizens will be classified as non-citizens and 1 non-citizen will be classified as a citizen. (This is a statistical expectation?the actual numbers will vary slightly.) The one non-citizen classified as a citizen will have trivial effects on any analyses of the overall pool of people categorized as citizens, as that individual will be 1 of 19,481 respondents. However, the 19 citizens incorrectly classified as non-citizens can have significant effects on analyses, as they are 3.7 percent (19 of 519) of respondents who said they are non-citizens.

Such misclassifications can explain completely the observed low rate of a behavior, such as voting, among a relatively rare or low-frequency group, such as non-citizens. Suppose that 70 percent of those with a given characteristic (e.g., citizens) engage in a behavior (e.g., voting). Suppose, further, that none of the people without the characteristic (e.g., non-citizens) are allowed to engage in the behavior in question (e.g., vote in federal elections). Based on these suppositions, of the 19 misclassified people, we expect 13 (70%) to be incorrectly determined to be non-citizen voters while 0 correctly classified non-citizens would be voters. Hence, a 0.1 percent rate of misclassification?a very low level of measurement error?would lead researchers to expect to observe that 13 of 519 (2.8 percent) people classified as non-citizens voted in the election, when those results are due entirely to measurement error, and no non-citizens actually voted."

Oh noes! The MSM is fact checking the voter fraud claims! The world is ending!
Man Who Championed Claims of Widespread Voter Fraud Gets Brutally Embarrassed on CNN | Mediaite

You are amazing.

I live in LA, it's easy to get ID's and an SSN card here. PLus they're giving illegals California Drivers licenses and here in California, when you get a license, they make sure you are registered to vote, it's almost automatic. Thanks to Governor MoonBeam!

imagine this hypothetical scenario:

You ask a group of 1000 people in a room, "raise your hand if you cheated on your taxes last year".... 20 people raise their hands... what conclusions would a reasonable person draw from that? that at LEAST 20 people in the room cheated on their taxes... is it likely that actual number is higher, perhaps much higher? of course, as there is strong bias to under-report illegal activity...

now comes along some wise-guy professor, and he tries to muddy the water a bit with some statistical bs: "such misclassifications can explain completely the observed low rate of a behavior"... implying that there is no tax evasion, because 20 people could have made a mistake when they raised their hands...

it's possible, but lets be real here, what is more likely in this hypothetical scenario? that 20 people made a mistake and there is no tax evasion, or that out of 100 that cheated on their taxes only 20 raised their hands?

No. If 20 people indicate "Yes, I cheated on my taxes" that could mean that 10 of them misunderstood the question, 5 of them actually cheated, 3 of them were incorrect or were recorded incorrectly, and 2 of them actually did cheat. Of course, any of those numbers could be different. Now if you take these 20 people and extrapolate them to represent a population of millions, you are going to have a very bad time, as Richman had. If you had a far larger number of people instead of 20, say a number that was statistically relevant to your population size, then you should very well look farther into the issue with follow-up questions for those particular people to determine if they were entered in error or true responses.

Margin of Error Discussion: Understanding the margin of error in election polls | Pew Research Center

People Lying on Polls: Frequently asked questions | Pew Research Center
Do people lie to pollsters?

We know that not all survey questions are answered accurately, but it’s impossible to say that any given inaccurate answer necessarily involves lying. People may simply not remember their behavior accurately.

More people say they voted in a given election than voting records indicate actually cast ballots. In some instances, researchers have actually verified the voting records of people who were interviewed and found that some of them said they voted but did not. Voting is generally considered a socially desirable behavior, just like attending church or donating money to charity. Studies suggest these kinds of behaviors are overreported. Similarly, socially undesirable behaviors such as illegal drug use, certain kinds of sexual behavior or driving while intoxicated are underreported.

We take steps to minimize errors related to questions about socially desirable or undesirable activities. For example, questions about voter registration and voting usually acknowledge that not everyone takes part in elections. Pew Research Center’s voter registration question is worded this way:

“These days, many people are so busy they can’t find time to register to vote, or move around so often they don’t get a chance to re-register. Are you NOW registered to vote in your precinct or election district or haven’t you been able to register so far?”

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :thumbsup

and let´s not forget even his daughter vote twice in two different towns :1orglaugh


besides, whether Trump won or not, Hillary would have made the better president :2 cents:

We are probably both right, it just depends how one interprets the results, you I think lean towards believing there is little to no fraud and any study suggesting there is is just a statistical anomaly as described in the Harvard paper...

I on the other hand lean towards believing the fact that humans tend to under-report negative things, so any studies showing fraud underestimate actual fraud percentage greatly, making actual fraud no longer "low frequency" and so analysis described in the Harvard paper would no longer apply...

the real answer is probably somewhere in the middle, that there is some fraud, but the extent of it we'll likely never find out because of difficulties in obtaining accurate data set... :thumbsup

Dems cheated and STILL lost in a landslide!

So this study Trump is citing is from a known conservative conspiracy theorist who runs a mobile phone app. Nothing to see here.

Trump tweets voter fraud claim based on a shoddy app for conspiracy theorists - The Verge

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/u...ter-fraud.html

Why would anyone not scrutinize the data sources of someone who reads and believes the National Enquirer? I'm talking about your president you dipshits. He reads the National Enquirer and said they should get the Pulitzer prize. Your president is a fucking retard and you're not too far behind.

How you can come to that conclusion in this thread is just mind boggling.

No, that's a totally different guy who ended up admitting that he might be referencing the Richman study as his basis.

Well said! :banana:banana:banana

can we share her ?

better part-time of a beautifull smart woman then 100% of .....

:)

This guy was on CNN this morning and again just now.

He just admitted he hasn't called any of the 3 million "cheaters" to verify any data, not 1. And just admitted that he can verify for certain that any of them committed voter fraud based on his current "data".

So basically Trump is relying on a nuts word that 3 million illegals voted, not on ANY actual data.

Trump supporters are gonna get tired of this shit eventually.

Let's not forget that this guy said:
"Phillips has also said since November that the data will eventually be released to the public in a form that will allow people to identify specific voters Phillips claims voted improperly."
Some dude with an app gives Trump his voter fraud ideas.

Now, now, gentlemen! I prefer one at a time!

http://www.collegemagazine.com/wp-co...1d78c104_b.jpg

No, they will just move to the next new thing, then when that's proven wrong they go to the next. This happens 3 to 5 times, then they end up back at the 1st thing as if it were true again.

Elli is my GFY crush