so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
By If you could get 50% of Americans to participate in any study that would be amazing.
Unfortunately amazing does not mean accurate. And there is now some kind of anti-survey movement going on where people purposely try to throw off survey results in a Howard Stern/American Idolish fashion. That brown cow/chocolate milk thing that was posted earlier screams this type of defiance. Personally, I don't care that much. It's a type of non-violent civil disobedience that hits the heart of where some of these drive by media outlets source their information.
Critique the conclusion some make about red states vs. blue states and violence all you want. That was not my point, my point was if any study could get 50% of the population to participate in that study, that would be a great study. Just look at how many people are polled for any given election...couple thousand maybe...now if you could poll 100 million your results would be way more accurate.
Just having a larger sample size wouldn't make it more valid. What you want is a sample that is as random a sample as you can get. If you do that with 600 people, you get a good representation of the country. At 1000 people, the margin of error is a little better, past 1000 and the margin or error doesn't improve much.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
Read the added second paragraph to my last comment. Your logic is completely scewed. Hang your hat on whatever you need. There have been no valid studies that I am aware of that proves conservatives are more or less violent than liberals.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
Exactly, and I'll state it once again. If you applied this logic to another category, homelessness, and found that red states have a higher homeless rate, would you conclude that more republicans are homeless? NO! That's not how it works! Lol.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
saying there is a correlation to red states having a higher incidence of violent crime is the same as data showing a correlation to higher crime rates in states with higher minority populations. would you agree?
if so, while those two facts might coexist, they show no relation to each other without knowing who is actually committing those crimes.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
Exactly, and I'll state it once again. If you applied this logic to another category, homelessness, and found that red states have a higher homeless rate, would you conclude that more republicans are homeless? NO! That's not how it works! Lol.
Well of course not, it would be the democrats who were homeless because the republicans evicted and foreclosed on them
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
Exactly, and I'll state it once again. If you applied this logic to another category, homelessness, and found that red states have a higher homeless rate, would you conclude that more republicans are homeless? NO! That's not how it works! Lol.
Well of course not, it would be the democrats who were homeless because the republicans evicted and foreclosed on them
Haha, or in the case of the violent criminals? Who knows, could be the exact same thing
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
So, for the adults in here, what would be the best way to collect comprehensive* data that determines whether liberals or conservatives are more violent? Be creative, science fiction welcome, minority report type data collection? Is it even scientifically possible to collect that type of data? Haha
So, for the adults in here, what would be the best way to collect comprehensive* data that determines whether liberals or conservatives are more violent? Be creative, science fiction welcome, minority report type data collection? Is it even scientifically possible to collect that type of data? Haha
Pull all the voter registration data and cross it with arrest data. That leaves out the non voters though, and the problem there is that non voters tend to be poor, and therefore skewed Because of the greater likelihood to be arrested.
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.
Reading this thread, you'd think half the people walking around in America are violent criminals. Good God, this country is worse than Stalinist Russia. From now on, I don't leave the house unless armed to the teeth. Democrats, Republicans and Pinkos beware!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
People do get overly fixated on crime. Fear is sort of built in to our culture and companies, including media, can sell a lot of product based on it. I always find it interesting that individual crime stories are made to be big news. Most of the time the victim and perpetrator know each other, but it comes across as random crime and violence.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
So, for the adults in here, what would be the best way to collect comprehensive* data that determines whether liberals or conservatives are more violent? Be creative, science fiction welcome, minority report type data collection? Is it even scientifically possible to collect that type of data? Haha
Pull all the voter registration data and cross it with arrest data. That leaves out the non voters though, and the problem there is that non voters tend to be poor, and therefore skewed Because of the greater likelihood to be arrested.
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.
Exactly, I think that is premature at our current technological age to get an accurate conclusion. Not that I want random devices around our homes monitoring our actions and thoughts, but you would almost have to in order to answer this question. In essence, the question itself could be invalid in that it assumes that there is a separation of violent tendencies based merely on political offiliation. i guess you could say that certain behaviors have the potential to lead to violence and try to narrow it down by what behaviors correlate to a person leaning left or right, but that would still be a huge undertaking...
People do get overly fixated on crime. Fear is sort of built in to our culture and companies, including media, can sell a lot of product based on it. I always find it interesting that individual crime stories are made to be big news. Most of the time the victim and perpetrator know each other, but it comes across as random crime and violence.
Exactly!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
So, for the adults in here, what would be the best way to collect comprehensive* data that determines whether liberals or conservatives are more violent? Be creative, science fiction welcome, minority report type data collection? Is it even scientifically possible to collect that type of data? Haha
Pull all the voter registration data and cross it with arrest data. That leaves out the non voters though, and the problem there is that non voters tend to be poor, and therefore skewed Because of the greater likelihood to be arrested.
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.
Exactly, I think that is premature at our current technological age to get an accurate conclusion. Not that I want random devices around our homes monitoring our actions and thoughts, but you would almost have to in order to answer this question. In essence, the question itself could be invalid in that it assumes that there is a separation of violent tendencies based merely on political offiliation. i guess you could say that certain behaviors have the potential to lead to violence and try to narrow it down by what behaviors correlate to a person leaning left or right, but that would still be a huge undertaking...
The question itself is not invalid. There would likely be several confounders but the question definitely isn't invalid. It's simply a matter of data collection and teasing out the other variables. Difficult but not impossible.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So, for the adults in here, what would be the best way to collect comprehensive* data that determines whether liberals or conservatives are more violent? Be creative, science fiction welcome, minority report type data collection? Is it even scientifically possible to collect that type of data? Haha
Pull all the voter registration data and cross it with arrest data. That leaves out the non voters though, and the problem there is that non voters tend to be poor, and therefore skewed Because of the greater likelihood to be arrested.
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.
Exactly, I think that is premature at our current technological age to get an accurate conclusion. Not that I want random devices around our homes monitoring our actions and thoughts, but you would almost have to in order to answer this question. In essence, the question itself could be invalid in that it assumes that there is a separation of violent tendencies based merely on political offiliation.
Not to mention that most people don't even identify as democrat or republican anymore. We probably all have a certain leaning, but to pigeon hole people to one or other would be difficult.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so you got nothin' then?
Nope, and neither do you
How so? There were 4 different studies indicating conservative states have higher crime rates. It's either their policies or their people who are creating criminals. Given the strength of correlation, it's probably both.
So, for the adults in here, what would be the best way to collect comprehensive* data that determines whether liberals or conservatives are more violent? Be creative, science fiction welcome, minority report type data collection? Is it even scientifically possible to collect that type of data? Haha
Pull all the voter registration data and cross it with arrest data. That leaves out the non voters though, and the problem there is that non voters tend to be poor, and therefore skewed Because of the greater likelihood to be arrested.
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.
Exactly, I think that is premature at our current technological age to get an accurate conclusion. Not that I want random devices around our homes monitoring our actions and thoughts, but you would almost have to in order to answer this question. In essence, the question itself could be invalid in that it assumes that there is a separation of violent tendencies based merely on political offiliation. i guess you could say that certain behaviors have the potential to lead to violence and try to narrow it down by what behaviors correlate to a person leaning left or right, but that would still be a huge undertaking...
The question itself is not invalid. There would likely be several confounders but the question definitely isn't invalid. It's simply a matter of data collection and teasing out the other variables. Difficult but not impossible.
Possible with our current data collection methods and technology? I guess we are on the verge of quantum computing, so possible...but ethical or moral? Anyways, that's a whole different rabbit hole.
I trust my own life experience and the things I've been told by people I know and trust more than any poll or survey.
There is value in that approach, but it can also lead to confirmation bias, where we seek out the people we agree with and pay attention to the information that confirms what we think we know. I'm not arguing that polls and studies are always correct, but sometimes they offer information that we don't want to believe is true so we reject it. Many things we once "knew" were true have turned out not to be.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so you got nothin' then?
Nope, and neither do you
How so? There were 4 different studies indicating conservative states have higher crime rates. It's either their policies or their people who are creating criminals. Given the strength of correlation, it's probably both.
You are using the data in a whole different way than it is measuring the study samples. The only true causation we have from those studies is that the conservative states had higher crime rates based on whatever measures they used to assess crime. How about we look at the US prison population demographics to next determine which races commit more crime? Would you find that surface level data acceptable at face value without digging more in to it? There is so much more that would have to be known to make the blanket statement you are making.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so you got nothin' then?
Nope, and neither do you
How so? There were 4 different studies indicating conservative states have higher crime rates. It's either their policies or their people who are creating criminals. Given the strength of correlation, it's probably both.
Or weather, or interstate crime, or demographics, gang proliferation or or or or. At least you are beginning to narrow it slightly by mentioning one other causal factor...just need to realize that there are a thousand more out there. In Texas, for instance, there were huge issues with meth related property crimes. Why more in Texas? It was actually due to the availability of agricultural products/chemicals used to produce the drug...Farmers are still having to deal with meth heads trying to get into their ammonia tanks...so many factors!
I trust my own life experience and the things I've been told by people I know and trust more than any poll or survey.
There is value in that approach, but it can also lead to confirmation bias, where we seek out the people we agree with and pay attention to the information that confirms what we think we know. I'm not arguing that polls and studies are always correct, but sometimes they offer information that we don't want to believe is true so we reject it. Many things we once "knew" were true have turned out not to be.
All true unless you're open-minded, train yourself to be skeptical of what you hear and critical in your thinking.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so you got nothin' then?
Nope, and neither do you
How so? There were 4 different studies indicating conservative states have higher crime rates. It's either their policies or their people who are creating criminals. Given the strength of correlation, it's probably both.
Or weather, or interstate crime, or demographics, gang proliferation or or or or. At least you are beginning to narrow it slightly by mentioning one other causal factor...just need to realize that there are a thousand more out there.
I'm sure breastfeeding could be factored in. How about primary school attendance? High school graduation rates? Yearly gross income? Race? Religious affiliation?
That study was all over the place. And Washington ranks just about worst for property crime, but we're not considered a red state by any measure I've seen. Pretty liberal here (which I think is a good thing - early adopters for gay marriage, weed legalization, restricted private firearms sales, etc...), yet have the 2nd highest property crime rate. I guess we're an outlier, but Oregon is right up there in property crime as well, and is also not particularly red.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so you got nothin' then?
Nope, and neither do you
How so? There were 4 different studies indicating conservative states have higher crime rates. It's either their policies or their people who are creating criminals. Given the strength of correlation, it's probably both.
Or weather, or interstate crime, or demographics, gang proliferation or or or or. At least you are beginning to narrow it slightly by mentioning one other causal factor...just need to realize that there are a thousand more out there.
I'm sure breastfeeding could be factored in. How about primary school attendance? High school graduation rates? Yearly gross income? Race? Religious affiliation?
That study was all over the place. And Washington ranks just about worst for property crime, but we're not considered a red state by any measure I've seen. Pretty liberal here (which I think is a good thing - early adopters for gay marriage, weed legalization, restricted private firearms sales, etc...), yet have the 2nd highest property crime rate. I guess we're an outlier, but Oregon is right up there in property crime as well, and is also not particularly red.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so you got nothin' then?
Nope, and neither do you
How so? There were 4 different studies indicating conservative states have higher crime rates. It's either their policies or their people who are creating criminals. Given the strength of correlation, it's probably both.
Or weather, or interstate crime, or demographics, gang proliferation or or or or. At least you are beginning to narrow it slightly by mentioning one other causal factor...just need to realize that there are a thousand more out there.
I'm sure breastfeeding could be factored in. How about primary school attendance? High school graduation rates? Yearly gross income? Race? Religious affiliation?
That study was all over the place. And Washington ranks just about worst for property crime, but we're not considered a red state by any measure I've seen. Pretty liberal here (which I think is a good thing - early adopters for gay marriage, weed legalization, restricted private firearms sales, etc...), yet have the 2nd highest property crime rate. I guess we're an outlier, but Oregon is right up there in property crime as well, and is also not particularly red.
But we are talking about violent crime, where does Washignton rank there?
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
By If you could get 50% of Americans to participate in any study that would be amazing.
Unfortunately amazing does not mean accurate. And there is now some kind of anti-survey movement going on where people purposely try to throw off survey results in a Howard Stern/American Idolish fashion. That brown cow/chocolate milk thing that was posted earlier screams this type of defiance. Personally, I don't care that much. It's a type of non-violent civil disobedience that hits the heart of where some of these drive by media outlets source their information.
Critique the conclusion some make about red states vs. blue states and violence all you want. That was not my point, my point was if any study could get 50% of the population to participate in that study, that would be a great study. Just look at how many people are polled for any given election...couple thousand maybe...now if you could poll 100 million your results would be way more accurate.
Just having a larger sample size wouldn't make it more valid. What you want is a sample that is as random a sample as you can get. If you do that with 600 people, you get a good representation of the country. At 1000 people, the margin of error is a little better, past 1000 and the margin or error doesn't improve much.
I guess I got lost in the weeds there to make a point. I shouldn't have used the analogy of polls. By voting they actually participated and it was no longer intent but results.
In science if you have a bigger sample size of results it is considered a better study...if that makes it clear as mud.
so we're drawing conclusions on which states have a higher percentage of violence based on party choice, when the voter turnout is typically less than 50%? and no one sees anything wrong with this test sample?
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?
For example, if 50% of the people vote, and it's a 60 / 40 split for Republican / Democrat. Then it is safe to assume the total population falls along that same 60 / 40 split.
Sure, a smaller test sample leads to a higher margin of error. But I would hardly call 4 separate studies, examining 4 different criteria, across all 50 states a 'small test sample'. There is a very clear correlation here.
A better sample in regards to political officiation vs violence would be to compare voting records to those with violent criminal records...but once again, you still are only getting a small sample of the population...voters.
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
The data does not indicate who is committing the crime in these states. You are drawing a conclusion based on what you think. Could that correlation be made, yes, but it also could be argued that there is higher crime for several other reasons that couple in with that data.
so you got nothin' then?
Nope, and neither do you
How so? There were 4 different studies indicating conservative states have higher crime rates. It's either their policies or their people who are creating criminals. Given the strength of correlation, it's probably both.
Or weather, or interstate crime, or demographics, gang proliferation or or or or. At least you are beginning to narrow it slightly by mentioning one other causal factor...just need to realize that there are a thousand more out there.
I'm sure breastfeeding could be factored in. How about primary school attendance? High school graduation rates? Yearly gross income? Race? Religious affiliation?
That study was all over the place. And Washington ranks just about worst for property crime, but we're not considered a red state by any measure I've seen. Pretty liberal here (which I think is a good thing - early adopters for gay marriage, weed legalization, restricted private firearms sales, etc...), yet have the 2nd highest property crime rate. I guess we're an outlier, but Oregon is right up there in property crime as well, and is also not particularly red.
But we are talking about violent crime, where does Washignton rank there?
Middle third (31/50). If we're talking strictly about violent crime, why was a property crime chart put up as some sort of corroboration? I was simply commenting on the "evidence" presented. But sure, I'll stick with violent crime. NM is a blue state and #4 in violent crimes. NV is a blue state and #2 in violent crime. So two of the top 4 states are blue states and two are red.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
if so, while those two facts might coexist, they show no relation to each other without knowing who is actually committing those crimes.
again, correlation does not equal causation.
www.headstonesband.com
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.
i guess you could say that certain behaviors have the potential to lead to violence and try to narrow it down by what behaviors correlate to a person leaning left or right, but that would still be a huge undertaking...
In Texas, for instance, there were huge issues with meth related property crimes. Why more in Texas? It was actually due to the availability of agricultural products/chemicals used to produce the drug...Farmers are still having to deal with meth heads trying to get into their ammonia tanks...so many factors!
That study was all over the place. And Washington ranks just about worst for property crime, but we're not considered a red state by any measure I've seen. Pretty liberal here (which I think is a good thing - early adopters for gay marriage, weed legalization, restricted private firearms sales, etc...), yet have the 2nd highest property crime rate. I guess we're an outlier, but Oregon is right up there in property crime as well, and is also not particularly red.
In science if you have a bigger sample size of results it is considered a better study...if that makes it clear as mud.