- Yep I found the study. It was using data from 2004 and 2008 and used a survey for its results. It didn't differentiate by weekend or weekday early voting and obviously couldn't actually use voter turnout for proof as your charts showed voter turnout increased every election from 1996 to 2008. I will say there are other studies that find different results as in an increase in turnout due to early voting or differences between impact of in person early voting vs mail in early voting. I appreciate the tip though. An interesting study.02-26-16 02:04 PMLike 0
- Yep I found the study. It was using data from 2004 and 2008 and used a survey for its results. It didn't differentiate by weekend or weekday early voting and obviously couldn't actually use voter turnout for proof as your charts showed voter turnout increased every election from 1996 to 2008. I will say there are other studies that find different results as in an increase in turnout due to early voting or differences between impact of in person early voting vs mail in early voting. I appreciate the tip though. An interesting study.
Just kidding.
That being said, having a black individual running for president did increase the amount of black people that actually voted that normally wouldn't have to a tune of an increase of 5 million votes (about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters, and about 600,000 more Asian voters). I haven't found the numbers on how many of those nor the breakdown on the demographics for the early voting. But I would bet it's not the early voting, but who was running that made the difference.grover5 likes this.02-26-16 02:21 PMLike 1 -
I'd like to see a change in the constitution to reflect early voting. I'd also like to see the PAC money candidates receive severally reduced, if not eliminated.02-26-16 02:26 PMLike 2 - Well, those are the Obama election years. His slogan was vote early and vote often. He was from Chicago after all.
Just kidding.
That being said, having a black individual running for president did increase the amount of black people that actually voted that normally wouldn't have to a tune of an increase of 5 million votes (about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters, and about 600,000 more Asian voters). I haven't found the numbers on how many of those nor the breakdown on the demographics for the early voting. But I would bet it's not the early voting, but who was running that made the difference.02-26-16 02:28 PMLike 0 -
- That argument has been posed. But there was also a study co-authored between University of Florida and Dartmouth that found african american voter turnout declined in Florida in 2012 after Gov Scott reduced early voting days before the election. I think we found another one we can agree to disagree on. But it would be great if there were a way to ensure everyone had access to vote easily regardless of how it is done.grover5 likes this.02-26-16 02:37 PMLike 1
- By saying it might be unconstitutional I mean under Article Two of the United States Constitution: Clause 4, it states that
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."Congress has always set a national election day to be on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire.
Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858middbrew likes this.02-26-16 03:46 PMLike 1 -
Look at the black Friday lines, that's not even close to everyone???02-26-16 03:49 PMLike 0 - I would like to see campaign contributions only accepted from the folks you represent... Why should Wall Street be giving money to the congressman from IA, you no longer represent your district when that happens. You now represent your donors and not your constituents...02-26-16 03:54 PMLike 2
- That argument has been posed. But there was also a study co-authored between University of Florida and Dartmouth that found african american voter turnout declined in Florida in 2012 after Gov Scott reduced early voting days before the election. I think we found another one we can agree to disagree on. But it would be great if there were a way to ensure everyone had access to vote easily regardless of how it is done.grover5 likes this.02-26-16 03:57 PMLike 1
- I remember when the Citizens United thing was going on. I think it was Ted Cruz who said it would violate the first amendment because limiting money equaled limiting speech (pretty sad that money equals speech).02-26-16 05:06 PMLike 2
- The True Colors of Mr. Constitution himself, one person with a lot of money has more rights then without... I'm sure that he also think that Corporations are People too.02-26-16 05:27 PMLike 3
- HAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the laugh.
If there was a national holiday enabling everyone to vote without any worry of loss of pay, then both parties would need to reevaluate their political strategies. As would the big corporate machines that drive both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Posted via CB1002-26-16 05:34 PMLike 0 - Jesus, calm down. You might hurt yourself with your fake laugh. Yes, if there was a national holiday enabling people to vote without any worry of loss of pay, then both parties WOULD need to reevaluate their political strategies. I guess "hyperbole" isn't part of your vocabulary. Both parties would need to change, but it does not change the fact that we should make voting as easy as possible for the most number of people, whether that means making a holiday out of it, extending early voting, and not pulling stupid stunts like Alabama tried (requiring government issued voter ID - like a driver's license - and then moving to close DMVs in majority black counties).
Posted via CB10
If you had read my post clearly and some of the others since, you would have understand that I'm all for having as many people that want to vote should have the ability to do so. I'm just convinced some of the reasoning that gets stated are in fact reasons for the poor turnout. At least the stats don't seem to point to it and I'm more inclined to look at that then some of the BS being turned out by both the Democrats and Republicans.02-26-16 05:50 PMLike 0 - I'm not Jesus, but I can understand the confusion. I get that a lot.
If you had read my post clearly and some of the others since, you would have understand that I'm all for having as many people that want to vote should have the ability to do so. I'm just convinced some of the reasoning that gets stated are in fact reasons for the poor turnout. At least the stats don't seem to point to it and I'm more inclined to look at that then some of the BS being turned out by both the Democrats and Republicans.
Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.85802-26-16 05:52 PMLike 3 -
- I'm not Jesus, but I can understand the confusion. I get that a lot.
If you had read my post clearly and some of the others since, you would have understand that I'm all for having as many people that want to vote should have the ability to do so. I'm just convinced some of the reasoning that gets stated are in fact reasons for the poor turnout. At least the stats don't seem to point to it and I'm more inclined to look at that then some of the BS being turned out by both the Democrats and Republicans.
I did read your post clearly, as well as those since. I'm really not sure why you would imply that I didn't, but I understand why you have to make that claim in order to make it sound as if I said something I didn't. I respect that you want more people to vote and that you see both sides as engaging in BS, and on those points we completely agree. I question your singular fetishization of stats, though, as if numbers never lie (now THAT'S a laugh). Something more multi-methodological would be much more appropriate in this case to, you know, actually hear from real people who can tell you what the numbers have no way of revealing.
Posted via CB1002-26-16 07:14 PMLike 0 - Wow... Really? Just... Wow. I'm not even going to respond to that, um, joke.
I did read your post clearly, as well as those since. I'm really not sure why you would imply that I didn't, but I understand why you have to make that claim in order to make it sound as if I said something I didn't. I respect that you want more people to vote and that you see both sides as engaging in BS, and on those points we completely agree. I question your singular fetishization of stats, though, as if numbers never lie (now THAT'S a laugh). Something more multi-methodological would be much more appropriate in this case to, you know, actually hear from real people who can tell you what the numbers have no way of revealing.
Posted via CB10
Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858middbrew likes this.02-26-16 07:25 PMLike 1 -
Seriously, I've enjoyed your posts in this thread. You DO know that we agree on most things, right?
Posted via CB1002-26-16 07:42 PMLike 0 - Wow... Really? Just... Wow. I'm not even going to respond to that, um, joke.
I did read your post clearly, as well as those since. I'm really not sure why you would imply that I didn't, but I understand why you have to make that claim in order to make it sound as if I said something I didn't. I respect that you want more people to vote and that you see both sides as engaging in BS, and on those points we completely agree. I question your singular fetishization of stats, though, as if numbers never lie (now THAT'S a laugh). Something more multi-methodological would be much more appropriate in this case to, you know, actually hear from real people who can tell you what the numbers have no way of revealing.
Posted via CB10
Sure, a person can manipulate stats to mean anything you want. I don't do that. Plus just because a person is using quantitative stats instead of qualitative stats doesn't mean you can't get any meaning out of it. And everything I have stated is from multi-methods (which can still be totally quantitative).02-26-16 08:38 PMLike 0 - What joke?
Sure, a person can manipulate stats to mean anything you want. I don't do that. Plus just because a person is using quantitative stats instead of qualitative stats doesn't mean you can't get any meaning out of it. And everything I have stated is from multi-methods (which can still be totally quantitative).
I never said quantitative research does not produce meaning, just that it works best when combined with other methods, be they quantitative or qualitative. And if that's what you're doing, then good for you. Keep it up.
Posted via CB10middbrew likes this.02-26-16 09:48 PMLike 1
- Forum
- CrackBerry Community
- Rehab & Off-Topic Lounge
Who is your US presidential candidate?
« BlackBerry considering Apple based Priv2
|
Apple�s iPhone Crackdown Is A Marketing Stunt�But A Good One »
Similar Threads
-
Is it worth getting a q10,rather than a classic in 2016?
By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a QuestionReplies: 3Last Post: 02-01-16, 11:29 AM -
Why has my phone restarted several times?
By CrackBerry Question in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & RumorsReplies: 1Last Post: 01-29-16, 02:32 PM -
What is a BBM cross platform ? How do I download one ?
By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a QuestionReplies: 2Last Post: 01-29-16, 01:36 AM -
Is BlackBerry priv available in India?
By thevoyager in forum Ask a QuestionReplies: 2Last Post: 01-28-16, 11:31 PM -
Is there a Free tethering option for my Bold 9900?
By Amine Mohamed in forum BlackBerry OSReplies: 1Last Post: 01-28-16, 10:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD