1 - 10 Next
If you observed irregularities during the voting process then it's incumbent upon you to make that known to the polling officials. That it might be your guess nothing would come of it is not an excuse.
Conservatism is a political philosophy. "Conservativism"™, on the other hand, is a political brand that has very little to do with political philosophy.
Why not just put a handy tattoo on citizens when they are born? Wouldn't that be far cheaper and more effective than any sort of after the fact paperwork? Just a quick little barcode thing, maybe on a wrist or the back of a hand.
You are making the same mistake as the authors of the article but probably less intentionally. The numbers in the survey are percentages of the one percent that said they were non-citizens registered to vote. Not of all illegal aliens in the US. Remember Mark Twain's injunction about Lies, damned lies, and statistics?
Point being Gore provided quick and easy disproof for Dandapani's claim.
Did you vote for educational funding in English? You've at least twenty errors in that small sample.
Begging your pardon, but Barack Obama has deported more people faster than any previous President.
Yet somehow what you see as a trivial expense has been viewed by the US Supreme Court as a poll tax and thus illegal.
The "Conservative"™ case would be built on not growing government for imaginary purposes. The Results say the outcome would not justify the expense.
Fraud so overwhelmingly obvious it only took six years to see it. Since the "Report" is allowing self-reported illegal voter registration and self reported illegal voting, did they do anything to ensure people answering the survey understood the questions? What is the numerical equivalent of "a not-insubstantial chunk"? Would that be the same thing as a not statistically significant chunk? That seems likely. The phrase "based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote" blithely skips over the fact that of the totals given, 38,000 in 2008 and 55400 in 2010, less than 1% reported being non-citizens. All the other numbers are percentages taken from this roughly one percent. So when the article says "Fourteen percent of non-citizens reported that they were registered to vote, and a not-insubstantial chunk of that subset admitted to actually casting ballots." it means 14% of the 1% that reported being non-citizens were registered and some smaller subset of that group reported actually voting. This means /at least/ 99.86% of the ballots were cast correctly. The rest of the could have, might have, perhaps bologna is just speculation largely based on the shadow of statistical significance and the lack thereof.
1 - 10 Next