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.
Are you suggesting that conservative states are more likely to prosecute minorities?
Or minorities are more likely to commit crimes in conservative states?
Either way, show me the 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.
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.
Sorry, I should have said I wanted to know about violent crime. I am not defending the chart by any means, not my battle. I was trying to stick with the original question of this thread.
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!
There is a lot of farmland outside of Texas, same problems happening in IL, IA, ND, SD, MN, MO....
One of the potential factors the study specifically points to is income. States identified with higher crime rates also correlate to lower per capita incomes. Conservative states have a lower average income per capita.
"Which political party is more violent?" It appears conservative policies in conservative states driven by conservative voters correlate with increase crime rates in those states. I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise....show me something!
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.
Are you suggesting that conservative states are more likely to prosecute minorities?
Or minorities are more likely to commit crimes in conservative states?
Either way, show me the data.
No, I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to understand if you would be as quick to take a data sample of a different topic at face value which hasn't been drilled down (just like your data) and accept it as fact even if it doesn't fit in to your personal opinion. That is why I suggested the race of prison populations. If you look at the Bureau of prisons, we all know that black non-Hispanics are the highest percent of the population, about 37% as of 2013, so based off the same analysis you just applied to that study, someone else could then state that black non-hispanic males are the most violent/criminal race in the US and be correct. Are you going to agree with that analysis? Raw, unmined and vague data does not provide any answers, it just allows certain groups to validate their agendas/policies.
You are fear mongering as much as the side you oppose when you make vague generalizations based on limited 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.
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!
There is a lot of farmland outside of Texas, same problems happening in IL, IA, ND, SD, MN, MO....
One of the potential factors the study specifically points to is income. States identified with higher crime rates also correlate to lower per capita incomes. Conservative states have a lower average income per capita.
"Which political party is more violent?" It appears conservative policies in conservative states driven by conservative voters correlate with increase crime rates in those states. I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise....show me something!
And refer to page 4 of this link: http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/15/execSummary.pdf As you can see, the high percentages of violent crimes comes from the large cities, which tend to be liberal leaning. I feel that these stats dig way deeper into the issue than what you provided. Check out Houston and San Antonio!!! And btw, violent crime actually reduced quite a bit in New York City under a republican mayor, so I'm not sure your logic holds up there either.
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.
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.
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.
Are you suggesting that conservative states are more likely to prosecute minorities?
Or minorities are more likely to commit crimes in conservative states?
Either way, show me the data.
No, I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to understand if you would be as quick to take a data sample of a different topic at face value which hasn't been drilled down (just like your data) and accept it as fact even if it doesn't fit in to your personal opinion. That is why I suggested the race of prison populations. If you look at the Bureau of prisons, we all know that black non-Hispanics are the highest percent of the population, about 37% as of 2013, so based off the same analysis you just applied to that study, someone else could then state that black non-hispanic males are the most violent/criminal race in the US and be correct. Are you going to agree with that analysis? Raw, unmined and vague data does not provide any answers, it just allows certain groups to validate their agendas/policies.
You are fear mongering as much as the side you oppose when you make vague generalizations based on limited data.
I am confused, are you saying that conservative states have a higher percentage of minorities? Is that why conservative states have higher crime rates?
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 agree, "There is a high correlation between right-leaning states and higher crime rates"
So then the question becomes, "What causes right-leaning states to have higher crime rates than their left-leaning counterparts?"
Do you really think Texas skews towards #46 in safety because of it's big cities; when New York, Illinois and California sit at #2, #20 & #23?
I was very clear at separating correlation and causation
So how do you account for the exceptions where the blue states have unusually high crime rates? Does it mean the democrats living there and their policies promote 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.
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 agree, "There is a high correlation between right-leaning states and higher crime rates"
So then the question becomes, "What causes right-leaning states to have higher crime rates than their left-leaning counterparts?"
Do you really think Texas skews towards #46 in safety because of it's big cities; when New York, Illinois and California sit at #2, #20 & #23?
I was very clear at separating correlation and causation
um, no you didn't. how do you separate the two but link the two directly? how does the question become "what causes..." right after "there is a high correlation....". that's directly linking correlation and causation. it's a massive leap that cannot legitimately be made. you can't ask the question of what causes one group to act a certain way before you have determined they actually do.
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!
There is a lot of farmland outside of Texas, same problems happening in IL, IA, ND, SD, MN, MO....
One of the potential factors the study specifically points to is income. States identified with higher crime rates also correlate to lower per capita incomes. Conservative states have a lower average income per capita.
"Which political party is more violent?" It appears conservative policies in conservative states driven by conservative voters correlate with increase crime rates in those states. I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise....show me something!
And refer to page 4 of this link: http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/15/execSummary.pdf As you can see, the high percentages of violent crimes comes from the large cities, which tend to be liberal leaning. I feel that these stats dig way deeper into the issue than what you provided. Check out Houston and San Antonio!!! And btw, violent crime actually reduced quite a bit in New York City under a republican mayor, so I'm not sure your logic holds up there either.
ftfa:
"These crime rate findings hold despite the fact that blue states have a higher population of residents in urban areas, which tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas."
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!
There is a lot of farmland outside of Texas, same problems happening in IL, IA, ND, SD, MN, MO....
One of the potential factors the study specifically points to is income. States identified with higher crime rates also correlate to lower per capita incomes. Conservative states have a lower average income per capita.
"Which political party is more violent?" It appears conservative policies in conservative states driven by conservative voters correlate with increase crime rates in those states. I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise....show me something!
And refer to page 4 of this link: http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/15/execSummary.pdf As you can see, the high percentages of violent crimes comes from the large cities, which tend to be liberal leaning. I feel that these stats dig way deeper into the issue than what you provided. Check out Houston and San Antonio!!! And btw, violent crime actually reduced quite a bit in New York City under a republican mayor, so I'm not sure your logic holds up there either.
ftfa:
"These crime rate findings hold despite the fact that blue states have a higher population of residents in urban areas, which tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas."
“There are, to be sure, many other variables to be considered other than partisanship when examining the different rates of crime between states.“ Did you forget that part?
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!
There is a lot of farmland outside of Texas, same problems happening in IL, IA, ND, SD, MN, MO....
One of the potential factors the study specifically points to is income. States identified with higher crime rates also correlate to lower per capita incomes. Conservative states have a lower average income per capita.
"Which political party is more violent?" It appears conservative policies in conservative states driven by conservative voters correlate with increase crime rates in those states. I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise....show me something!
And refer to page 4 of this link: http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/15/execSummary.pdf As you can see, the high percentages of violent crimes comes from the large cities, which tend to be liberal leaning. I feel that these stats dig way deeper into the issue than what you provided. Check out Houston and San Antonio!!! And btw, violent crime actually reduced quite a bit in New York City under a republican mayor, so I'm not sure your logic holds up there either.
ftfa:
"These crime rate findings hold despite the fact that blue states have a higher population of residents in urban areas, which tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas."
“There are, to be sure, many other variables to be considered other than partisanship when examining the different rates of crime between states.“ Did you forget that part?
That may be true. That does not nullify the thesis of the article, though: Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States
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!
There is a lot of farmland outside of Texas, same problems happening in IL, IA, ND, SD, MN, MO....
One of the potential factors the study specifically points to is income. States identified with higher crime rates also correlate to lower per capita incomes. Conservative states have a lower average income per capita.
"Which political party is more violent?" It appears conservative policies in conservative states driven by conservative voters correlate with increase crime rates in those states. I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise....show me something!
And refer to page 4 of this link: http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/15/execSummary.pdf As you can see, the high percentages of violent crimes comes from the large cities, which tend to be liberal leaning. I feel that these stats dig way deeper into the issue than what you provided. Check out Houston and San Antonio!!! And btw, violent crime actually reduced quite a bit in New York City under a republican mayor, so I'm not sure your logic holds up there either.
ftfa:
"These crime rate findings hold despite the fact that blue states have a higher population of residents in urban areas, which tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas."
“There are, to be sure, many other variables to be considered other than partisanship when examining the different rates of crime between states.“ Did you forget that part?
That may be true. That does not nullify the thesis of the article, though: Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States
But that was not your conclusion, was it? You concluded that must mean conservatives are committing the crimes. The article clearly states that there are other veriables to consider when considering partisanship. You concluded what the study you presented disclaimed. That nullified your conclusion as it is in direct opposition to the exact study that you used to draw that conclusion.
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!
There is a lot of farmland outside of Texas, same problems happening in IL, IA, ND, SD, MN, MO....
One of the potential factors the study specifically points to is income. States identified with higher crime rates also correlate to lower per capita incomes. Conservative states have a lower average income per capita.
"Which political party is more violent?" It appears conservative policies in conservative states driven by conservative voters correlate with increase crime rates in those states. I have yet to see anything that indicates otherwise....show me something!
And refer to page 4 of this link: http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/15/execSummary.pdf As you can see, the high percentages of violent crimes comes from the large cities, which tend to be liberal leaning. I feel that these stats dig way deeper into the issue than what you provided. Check out Houston and San Antonio!!! And btw, violent crime actually reduced quite a bit in New York City under a republican mayor, so I'm not sure your logic holds up there either.
ftfa:
"These crime rate findings hold despite the fact that blue states have a higher population of residents in urban areas, which tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas."
“There are, to be sure, many other variables to be considered other than partisanship when examining the different rates of crime between states.“ Did you forget that part?
That may be true. That does not nullify the thesis of the article, though: Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States
But that was not your conclusion, was it? You concluded that must mean conservatives are committing the crimes. The article clearly states that there are other veriables to consider when considering partisanship. You concluded what the study you presented disclaimed. That nullified your conclusion as it is in direct opposition to the exact study that you used to draw that conclusion.
I think crime, or the type of crime we seem to be talking about, is generally determined by socio-economic factors (and FWIW, I think weather/climate really does have an impact on that, lol). So, if that is true, I figure that at least tells us that red states do worse socio-economically.... and I think we all know that isn't really up for debate.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Maybe this has something to do with it? Interesting timeline of crime based on the UCR report from 2004 - 2013. Some states have stayed and some have changed significantly.
By comparing the 2015 numbers in a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that lists divorce rates by state, with NPR's list that shows how states voted, it becomes evident that the states with the top five highest divorce rates were mostly Republican, while the states with the lowest number of divorces were almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe they get lonely during the long, dark winter, get married so cure the boredom, and then when it becomes almost perpetual daylight in the summers they get all squirrely and hyperactive and have to divorce before it comes to blows. Or the opposite... locked inside with the same damn person all winter... by the end of it they're about ready to strangle each other, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
By comparing the 2015 numbers in a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that lists divorce rates by state, with NPR's list that shows how states voted, it becomes evident that the states with the top five highest divorce rates were mostly Republican, while the states with the lowest number of divorces were almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.
Arkansas and Nevada for the win... Inbreeding and moonshine vs hookers and blow. I am a bit surprised by Alaska as well. Are we sure that it is divorces and not a spouse just getting eaten by a bear?
By comparing the 2015 numbers in a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that lists divorce rates by state, with NPR's list that shows how states voted, it becomes evident that the states with the top five highest divorce rates were mostly Republican, while the states with the lowest number of divorces were almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.
Arkansas and Nevada for the win... Inbreeding and moonshine vs hookers and blow. I am a bit surprised by Alaska as well. Are we sure that it is divorces and not a spouse just getting eaten by a bear?
Alaska has the highest male/female ratio: 108.9 men for every 100 women. Lots of options for women if your first hubby doesn't work out.
Oklahoma is not surprising. Wyoming is a bit perplexing. Kinda surprised that New York and Illinois are on the low end...Wonder how these states differ in regards to divorce laws from the highest rated. I'm betting average age of people getting married is a significant factor as well in some states.
Comments
You are fear mongering as much as the side you oppose when you make vague generalizations based on limited data.
https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txCriminalAlienStatistics.htm
And refer to page 4 of this link:
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/15/execSummary.pdf
As you can see, the high percentages of violent crimes comes from the large cities, which tend to be liberal leaning. I feel that these stats dig way deeper into the issue than what you provided. Check out Houston and San Antonio!!!
And btw, violent crime actually reduced quite a bit in New York City under a republican mayor, so I'm not sure your logic holds up there either.
www.headstonesband.com
I was very clear at separating correlation and causation
"there is a high correlation....". that's directly linking correlation and causation. it's a massive leap that cannot legitimately be made. you can't ask the question of what causes one group to act a certain way before you have determined they actually do.
www.headstonesband.com
Did you forget that part?
...sigh...I'll leave this here...again...
The data that is being discussed is from 2009 and based on the 2008 uniform crime report so lets focus on that election information.
In comparison here is @CM189191 graphs:
Maybe this has something to do with it?
Interesting timeline of crime based on the UCR report from 2004 - 2013. Some states have stayed and some have changed significantly.
States With Highest Divorce Rates
States With Lowest Divorce Rates
http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_Republicans_vs._Democrats
www.headstonesband.com