So yes, let's get to yourinanalysis:
http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteincen...nd-Turnout.pdf and this study: http://brennan.3cdn.net/92635ddafbc0..._i3m6bjdeh.pdf
I objected to the other study because it looked at only one state in two elections. The Alth study is probably the most thorough on the subject as it looks at TWENTY FIVE different states -- some with new voter ID laws, some with other new restrictions, and some with no changes.Your first link there does the same thing that you disregarded another study a few posts back for doing. Only analyzing 2 elections. Your second link states....
Well no ****, Sherlock. Any time someone applies data analysis to predict future results they are engaging in conjecture. Projections, by definition, involve conjecture. But this particular author bases her predictions on a broad survey of past results.States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections. Which basically boils down to them talking out their ass and have no actual proof themselves past that paragraph. IE its all conjecture, opinions etc etc.
Originally Posted by AdamT
The Disproportionate Impact of Photo-ID Laws on the Minority Electorate « Latino DecisionsThe article says absolutely nothing of the kind. What an incredibly dishonest appraisal. All the article says is that, statistically, speaking, "minority and foreign-born voters are less likely to have a valid photo-ID. Therefore, these laws place a disproportionate and additional cost to voting for specific segments of the electorate." Nowhere in the article does it say, or even suggest, that it would be impossible for these people to obtain valid ID.These people are basically trying to say that if they don't have ID now then they cannot get ID period. Idiotic.
Wow, another incredibly dishonest (or simply ignorant) analysis. The paper is about statistical methodology and they use two unrelated examples to demonstrate their model.Wow...this link jumps from religion and abortion and voter ID requirements....just...wow.
The fact that they applied their model to two different problems in no way detracts from their results. Your "analysis" couldn't be more trivial.In addition to developing this model in this paper, we presented two empirical applications of our
empirical Bayes estimator using examples drawn from contemporary research problems. One of these
problems involved an ordinal treatment variable drawn from a widely used survey (abortion preferences
from the GSS), whereas the other focused on a variable that measured a dimension of state election administration
policies (voter identification policies). We showed with each application the utility of our
And so I see little point in going on. It's perfectly obvious that you either haven't bothered to read the articles, or you did and are simply too closed minded to address them seriously, or you just don't understand them. Either way you are a waste of time.