Which Political Party Is Violent?

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

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?

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.

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

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?

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.

CM189191 said:

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?

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.

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

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?

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

CM189191 said:

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

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?

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?

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. 

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

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

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.