Which Political Party Is Violent?
Comments
-
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.0 -
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.dignin said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.dignin said:
By If you could get 50% of Americans to participate in any study that would be amazing.HughFreakingDillon said: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?0 -
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.0 -
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.tbergs said:
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
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?CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Well of course not, it would be the democrats who were homeless because the republicans evicted and foreclosed on themPJPOWER said:
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.tbergs said:
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
Haha, or in the case of the violent criminals? Who knows, could be the exact same thingtbergs said:
Well of course not, it would be the democrats who were homeless because the republicans evicted and foreclosed on themPJPOWER said:
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.tbergs said:
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.
0 -
so you got nothin' then?tbergs said:
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.0 -
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? HahaPost edited by PJPOWER on0
-
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.PJPOWER said: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
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.0 -
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!
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.0
-
Nope, and neither do youCM189191 said:
so you got nothin' then?tbergs said:
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists. It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.Go Beavers said:
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.PJPOWER said: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
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...Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Exactly!Go Beavers said: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.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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.PJPOWER said: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
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...
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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.PJPOWER said: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
Doing polling by self report wouldn't be very valid because people probably don't want to share their criminal history over the phone.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.tbergs said:
Nope, and neither do youCM189191 said:
so you got nothin' then?tbergs said:
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.CM189191 said:
...by all means...show me information to the contrary...PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
Isn't the point of an election to elect persons that represent the population?HughFreakingDillon said: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?
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.
Until then, I'll hang my hat on the data that actually exists.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help