• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: The Right of American Citizens to Vote Shall Not Be Infringed.

CaptainCourtesy said:
A lawyer friend of mine once told me that if someone REALLY wants to get out of jury duty and can't, they must be really stupid.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a way. I am prohibited from serving on jury duty. I am almost deaf. All the person has to do is shove a stick through their ear drum. Mine was cause by chemical exposure in the Army. It is an option, but a painful one.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I'm a strong supporter of the saying that those who don't vote, don't have any moral right to complain about who gets elected.
Click to expand...

That's the cliche yes.
There aren't any qualified candidates, imo and the future isn't looking any better.

The George Carlin perspective, is that if you do vote, you shouldn't complain.
You helped put them there, it's partly your fault.
 
dimensionallava said:
if you make it easier to vote, then republicans will not be able to hold office its not fair to them
Click to expand...

In Colorado it is working different than you envision. The state is going red. So much for that theory.
 
foadi said:
No, they are paying bounties on new republican registrations. This practice is not illegal, although it does encourage slamming, which is voter registration fraud and definitely illegal.
Click to expand...

It depends on which state you are in and the approach to the person that they want to register.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I'm a strong supporter of the saying that those who don't vote, don't have any moral right to complain about who gets elected.
Click to expand...

If anyone can't complain it is those that vote. If you never take part in the process then you can criticize whatever you want.
 
Ancient Herald said:
The answer is yes:

Most Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Vote - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢
Click to expand...

And here's why those who care about polling ACCURACY take a very dim view of Rasmussen Reports:

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance:

- generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window

- speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process

- does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially

- and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys.

These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent. (edited to emphasize bullet points - wording was not changed - and to add underlining)

As can be seen above, Rasmussen is sloppy - computer scripts can't tell if the one who answers is a 12 year-old kid, and by not calling cell phones skews towards older participants, and as far as I can tell, there's no real effort made to ascertain the party affiliation of the participant. What's more, pay attention to the underlined portion. The participants answering could themselves be illegals who of course can't vote, but Rasmussen isn't verifying who the participants are - instead, they're weighting their surveys based on PREORDAINED ASSUMPTIONS about the party identification of voters in each state.

In other words, Rasmussen Reports is the poster child for Mark Twain's, quip that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And here's why those who care about polling ACCURACY take a very dim view of Rasmussen Reports:

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance:

- generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window

- speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process

- does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially

- and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys.

These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent. (edited to emphasize bullet points - wording was not changed - and to add underlining)

As can be seen above, Rasmussen is sloppy - computer scripts can't tell if the one who answers is a 12 year-old kid, and by not calling cell phones skews towards older participants, and as far as I can tell, there's no real effort made to ascertain the party affiliation of the participant. What's more, pay attention to the underlined portion. The participants answering could themselves be illegals who of course can't vote, but Rasmussen isn't verifying who the participants are - instead, they're weighting their surveys based on PREORDAINED ASSUMPTIONS about the party identification of voters in each state.

In other words, Rasmussen Reports is the poster child for Mark Twain's, quip that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...

I am not sure they intentionally lie but they suck. They are riding on the brand name right now.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many of the things you call hinderances are necessary to help to prevent voter fraud by multiple voting. It is not uncommon for folks to have multiple "residences" yet a DL contains only one of them. Simply allowing anyone that enters a polling place (or requests an absentee ballot) to cast a vote would be a complete mess.
Click to expand...

And the entire conservative argument that such people COULD drive from voting district to voting district, voting multiple times for whoever they wanted to win, is not borne out by actual EVIDENCE. There's no EVIDENCE of widespread voter fraud in any state. Why? Because while most people cherish the right to vote, there's almost none who are willing to commit voter fraud. The instances of in-person voter fraud is almost completely nonexistent.

So what's happening - at least in the case of the conservatives who have drunk deeply of the rampant-voter-fraud Kool-Aid - is that they are willing to effectively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters just to prevent the vanishingly-small number of instances of in-person voter fraud.

But there's many conservatives who know that the voter-fraud red herring for what it is, who know that they are supporting voter suppression...and who simply think that such voter suppression is the way it should be in America, just as it was during Jim Crow.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's the cliche yes.
There aren't any qualified candidates, imo and the future isn't looking any better.

The George Carlin perspective, is that if you do vote, you shouldn't complain.
You helped put them there, it's partly your fault.
Click to expand...

If there aren't any qualified candidates, then write in the non-candidates who you think ARE qualified. It's that simple.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I am not sure they intentionally lie but they suck. They are riding on the brand name right now.
Click to expand...

Well, they have consistently skewed towards Republicans for quite a few years now. Great care has to be taken when designing a poll, and when a polling agency's numbers show a consistent skew away from what the other polling agencies find - and when the degree of the error is evinced by just how badly they got things wrong in the last presidential election - one must ask why they make such deliberate choices as they do in the design of their polls.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's pointless.
It literally does nothing, but show that I wasted my time.
Click to expand...

Y'know, you might have a point if you were referring to only one race...but in almost every election, there's not just one race, but quite a few, and for your point - and Henrin's - to stand, that would require that none of the candidates from ANY of the elections are qualified.

What y'all are referring to is not a reason, but only an excuse.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Y'know, you might have a point if you were referring to only one race...but in almost every election, there's not just one race, but quite a few, and for your point - and Henrin's - to stand, that would require that none of the candidates from ANY of the elections are qualified.

What y'all are referring to is not a reason, but only an excuse.
Click to expand...

:lol: My reason for not voting has nothing to do with the candidates.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The CA governor just signed a bill allowing all California residents who are American citizens to automatically be registered to vote when they first get (or renew) their drivers license.

What's wrong with making it easier for American citizens (18 and above, of course) to vote? Why not remove all hindrances - such as required periodic pre-registration - to what should be the most basic of all American rights?
Click to expand...

Some variation of this has been done in other states. Drawback is that many state front line workers are already overwhelmed and may "overlook" this. (Been to the DMV lately?)
 
Fletch said:
I don't have a problem with it. But it is funny how they get that registration when the apply for a picture ID. Ask them to show that picture ID when they go to vote and its a racist outrage to the left.
Click to expand...

C'mon man, without hypocrisy, what else would the left have? :rolleyes:
 
NonoBadDog said:
It depends on which state you are in and the approach to the person that they want to register.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about California, which is why I specifically said the California Republican Party is paying in my post.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Y'know, you might have a point if you were referring to only one race...but in almost every election, there's not just one race, but quite a few, and for your point - and Henrin's - to stand, that would require that none of the candidates from ANY of the elections are qualified.

What y'all are referring to is not a reason, but only an excuse.
Click to expand...

That's fine, that's your opinion.
I believe the election system, from all levels to be inherently broken.

Short terms in office, will yield short term results, with people that want to capitalize on "patching the broken dam, rather than replacing the dam as a whole."
I've monitored the candidates for various offices, from the local public service commission to el presidente.
Time and again, I see unethical people running and getting elected, when they should never be trusted with that kind of power and influence.
Party makes no difference and 3rd party candidates are often cartoonish portrayals of the people they allegedly represent.

Thus, it's a waste of my time to bother.
 
foadi said:
I'm talking about California, which is why I specifically said the California Republican Party is paying in my post.
Click to expand...

Dimens(add a bunch of letters here) was talking about generally so I was clarifying.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And here's why those who care about polling ACCURACY take a very dim view of Rasmussen Reports:

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance:

- generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window

- speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process

- does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially

- and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys.

These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent. (edited to emphasize bullet points - wording was not changed - and to add underlining)

As can be seen above, Rasmussen is sloppy - computer scripts can't tell if the one who answers is a 12 year-old kid, and by not calling cell phones skews towards older participants, and as far as I can tell, there's no real effort made to ascertain the party affiliation of the participant. What's more, pay attention to the underlined portion. The participants answering could themselves be illegals who of course can't vote, but Rasmussen isn't verifying who the participants are - instead, they're weighting their surveys based on PREORDAINED ASSUMPTIONS about the party identification of voters in each state.

In other words, Rasmussen Reports is the poster child for Mark Twain's, quip that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this. This is one of many reasons why I have a strong distrust of polls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom