03-09-16 11:18 PM
567 ... 1819202122 ...
tools
  1. grover5's Avatar
    No, I'm talking the overall results, not just on election day.
    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 PM
  2. grover5's Avatar
    On the constitutional side of things I'm not concerned. I want a democracy where everyone can vote easily.
    02-26-16 02:10 PM
  3. middbrew's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    grover5 likes this.
    02-26-16 02:21 PM
  4. middbrew's Avatar
    On the constitutional side of things I'm not concerned. I want a democracy where everyone can vote easily.
    I'm with you 100% on that.

    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.
    grover5 and Soapm like this.
    02-26-16 02:26 PM
  5. grover5's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    02-26-16 02:28 PM
  6. grover5's Avatar
    I'm with you 100% on that.

    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.
    I agree on all counts.
    middbrew likes this.
    02-26-16 02:32 PM
  7. middbrew's Avatar
    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.
    When I find the time I really need to see if I can find the data on early voters by their demographics and state they voted in. That would be very interesting. the US Census Bureau has a lot of that data, it can be a little time consuming going though it to find what you want. But I had started using GIS and some of the statistics you can use with time and location to get a really robust look a data like that.
    grover5 likes this.
    02-26-16 02:37 PM
  8. misterabrasive's Avatar
    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.
    Just because you cast your vote early doesn't mean that it gets counted early. You are actually 'giving your vote to the electors on election day. That's when they all are given and counted.

    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858
    middbrew likes this.
    02-26-16 03:46 PM
  9. Soapm's Avatar
    I'm sorry, but give me a break! Compare this to black friday lines, iphone sale lines, rioting, etc... we're talking about an hour. ..
    Must be the same few who vote, that have time to stand in black Friday lines and riot...

    Look at the black Friday lines, that's not even close to everyone???
    02-26-16 03:49 PM
  10. Soapm's Avatar
    I'm with you 100% on that.

    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.
    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...
    middbrew and grover5 like this.
    02-26-16 03:54 PM
  11. Soapm's Avatar
    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.
    And state ID can't determine citizenship? No where in the constitution does it say I have to have a state id to be considered a citizen, but it does say all citizens above the age have a right to vote...
    grover5 likes this.
    02-26-16 03:57 PM
  12. middbrew's Avatar
    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...
    I'm all for taking big business and interest groups being limited in what and who they can fund.
    grover5 likes this.
    02-26-16 04:05 PM
  13. tmf06's Avatar
    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...
    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).
    grover5 and Soapm like this.
    02-26-16 05:06 PM
  14. DaDaDogg's Avatar
    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).
    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.
    grover5, tmf06 and Soapm like this.
    02-26-16 05:27 PM
  15. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    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.
    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
    02-26-16 05:34 PM
  16. middbrew's Avatar
    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
    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.
    02-26-16 05:50 PM
  17. misterabrasive's Avatar
    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.
    Most of it is BS on both sides.

    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858
    middbrew, tmf06 and Goldboot02 like this.
    02-26-16 05:52 PM
  18. middbrew's Avatar
    Most of it is BS on both sides.

    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858
    Sad but true.
    Goldboot02 likes this.
    02-26-16 06:15 PM
  19. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    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.
    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
    02-26-16 07:14 PM
  20. misterabrasive's Avatar
    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
    Sounds just like most of the politicians we see on TV. I won't vote for you either.

    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858
    middbrew likes this.
    02-26-16 07:25 PM
  21. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    Sounds just like most of the politicians we see on TV. I won't vote for you either.

    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858
    Damn, and I was really counting on your vote!

    Seriously, I've enjoyed your posts in this thread. You DO know that we agree on most things, right?

    Posted via CB10
    02-26-16 07:42 PM
  22. misterabrasive's Avatar
    Damn, and I was really counting on your vote!

    Seriously, I've enjoyed your posts in this thread. You DO know that we agree on most things, right?

    Posted via CB10
    I still won't vote for you. Lol.

    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858
    middbrew likes this.
    02-26-16 07:56 PM
  23. misterabrasive's Avatar
    I still won't vote for you. Lol. Besides, I believe you have me confused with that fellow that takes corporate contributions from those large breweries.

    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858


    Posted from my Verizon Z10 10.3.2.858
    middbrew likes this.
    02-26-16 07:59 PM
  24. middbrew's Avatar
    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
    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).
    02-26-16 08:38 PM
  25. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    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).
    Exactly - what joke?

    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 CB10
    middbrew likes this.
    02-26-16 09:48 PM
567 ... 1819202122 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Is it worth getting a q10,rather than a classic in 2016?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-01-16, 11:29 AM
  2. Why has my phone restarted several times?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-29-16, 02:32 PM
  3. What is a BBM cross platform ? How do I download one ?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-16, 01:36 AM
  4. Is BlackBerry priv available in India?
    By thevoyager in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-28-16, 11:31 PM
  5. Is there a Free tethering option for my Bold 9900?
    By Amine Mohamed in forum BlackBerry 7
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-16, 10:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD