Eric, I came into this with no preconceived opinion and only looked at the
data, which you would not provide. I then incorporated the article (not data)
you did provide. And stated the overwhelming and obvious conclusion. It's there
for all to see.
You continue to obfuscate the data and cherry pick you sample set, this does
not change reality. You again draw a line that insures that there are 3 states
in your sample. 22%? How did you arrive at that as a significant number?
Obviously, it was because it contained the three states. What about 20% or 10%?
Now you position fails. This is called a limited sample, and it's specifically
designed to manipulate the data to SOUND good. "There is no trimming of data
there", yet that’s exactly what you did.
Give it a try. Provide a complete argument. Explain why you chose 22% and how
you calculated that 22%. And use the same method at 10% or 20%. You didn't even
provide backup information of how you arrived at 22%.
If your argument is valid, the additional information will support your
position...But it won't.
There is nothing wrong with something you "like" not being supported by the
data. Accept it and move on.
Also, people like "things" based problems/solutions, such as voter turnout
being low because it's difficult to vote. When the reality, like most issues,
it's a people problem. An issue of attitudes. It is far more difficult to
change attitudes and encourage involvement. It's no different than children who
claim that something is "too hard" to do when the reality is they just don't
want to do it, and inevitably, when they start doing that task, it becomes
routine and just a habit that they don't even think about.
The problem, at least in my opinion, with most efforts to get people involved
in politics and voting, is that the efforts come, primarily, from political
parties and activist groups, all of which are pushing that their side is right
and the uninvolved should get involved on their side. This just alienates those
that don't want to be pushed in a particular direction, or have already decided
on the opposite position. Unfortunately, those who are involved, who would run
programs to get more involvement, already have heart-felt opinions and, based
on my observations, can't put this aside and present an unbiased position,
especially when faced with getting more people involved who will disagree their
positions. It's a catch 22. The solution is obvious. The efforts to increase
voter participation would need to be run by those that have no interests in a
particular party/position...but this is fantasy because they don't want to. Far
easier to say "let's have mail-in votes, that will work", even though the data
and article says otherwise.
Keep in mind. I would personally prefer an easier way to vote. But the data
does not support it as a means to increase voter participation. And while I may
like it for me, I will not support a useless and costly idea. It’s the
difference between what I like and what is a responsible approach for the
community.
Rest of post
-----Original Message-----
From: Framingham Government Forum - FramGov - Massachusetts
[mailto:framgov@forums.e-democracy.org] On Behalf Of Eric Cigan
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 9:49 PM
To: <email obscured>
Cc: FramGov
Subject: Re: [FramGov] More nerdification
Mr Cohen, your logic fails: only three states out of 50 have mail-in-only
voting, yet all three place in the top 22 percent of states. There is no
trimming of data there, no manipulation.
-Eric Cigan
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 11, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Randall Cohen <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> (2 post limit makes it difficult to have a conversation, originally
> sent Friday)
>
> Again, carefully trimming the data to fit your argument does not make it so.
3 out of 11 hardly shows a trend, especially when they are basically randomly
placed within your limited sample (limiting the sample is a favorite way to
manipulate statistics), and none are in the top 3. For example, if you look at
the top 10, a more common number by which ranking samples are limited, it's
only 2, but you added that 11th so you could boost your number.
>
> I get it that you like the idea, but the statistics, when taken as a whole,
do not back up the idea that it is an effective means to increase
participation.
>
> Even the article you reference makes it clear that increased
communication/information with the voter is necessary to increase voter
participation in mail-in votes. But isn't it likely that the same increase in
communications/information would also increase participation in traditional
polling?
>
> Essentially this is what I've already said. Getting the voters more involved
will increase voter participation, changing the means by which voting is done
(with its added cost) is unnecessary.
>
> I'll also point out that the level of risk to someone who wants to submit a
fraudulent vote is significantly lower with the mail-in system described in the
article. Basically a signed affidavit stating they are who they say they are,
mailed in. Let's face it, no one is independently verifying these signatures.
So there is virtually no risk to an individual who uses someone else's name in
completing a mail-in vote. Traditional voting, even without an ID requirement,
physically exposes a possible fraudulent voter, this is a huge risk. And
protecting the integrity of the vote is absolutely necessary to insuring
voter's faith in the system. And of course, once that faith in the system goes
away, voters won't bother to show up, thus reducing voter participation even
more.
>
> And finally, while I'm not a fan of electronic voting at this time, and there
is no data saying it would increase participation, it is inevitable that voting
will eventually move in that direction. So wouldn't tax payer's dollars be
better spent on this inevitable move, than on a technology (mail) that has been
dying for decades? If we are going to throw money at something, let's at least
do it responsibly.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Framingham Government Forum - FramGov - Massachusetts
> [mailto:framgov@forums.e-democracy.org] On Behalf Of Eric Cigan
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 5:05 PM
> To: <email obscured>
> Cc: FramGov
> Subject: Re: [FramGov] More nerdification
>
> Mr. Cohen neglected to mention the merits of voting by mail. According to his
chart, the three states (Colorado, Oregon and Washington) that exclusively rely
on voting by mail are all in the top 11 states in terms of the percentage of
eligible voters who voted (let's call that "voter participation" for brevity).
>
> He notes that other states use vote by mail under certain conditions,
> and that those states vary widely in voter participation. However, one
> could infer from this that having a uniform process of voting
> exclusively by mail
> -- rather than a process that varies depending on special conditions -- would
be a way to boost voter participation.
>
> According to an article in the Washington Post from December 2015 (
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/21/voting-o
> nly-by-mail-can-decrease-or-increase-turnout-wait-what/),
> relying exclusively on vote by mail can boost turnout, but this can only be
safely relied upon under two additional conditions.
>
> 1. That voters actually try voting by mail - once they've done it just one
time, a high percentage say they will do it again.
> 2. That voters get multiple reminders to vote, such as sample ballots, voting
guides, etc. These serve as a stimulus encouraging voters to mail in their
ballot.
>
> As a result, Oregon achieved 70.2 percent voter participation rate. (
> http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/statistics/participation-sta
> ts-11-2016.pdf
> ).
>
> --Eric Cigan
> District 5, Framingham
>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Randall Cohen <<email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>> ― 1 file link ―
>>
>> Eric, has declined to provide the raw data and/or cite the source
>> (either here or directly). So I did my own research and found that
>> the data does not support the conclusion that early voting results in
greater turnout.
>>
>> Similarly, all mail in voting seems to have no affect either.
>> Personally I was a little surprised by this.
>>
>> There may be some correlation between voter turnout and same day
>> registration but we need to keep in mind that the data is from a
>> highly contentious presidential election year where voter turnout was
>> unusually high. There has also been some data indicating that some
>> same day registrants were also registered in other municipalities,
>> and while this is not a direct indicator of voter fraud, it is
>> notable as a potential means toward that end. Personally I could
>> support same day registration provided it was done in conjunction
>> with a federally recognized ID requirement. For those interested,
>> such an ID already exist (google "The REAL ID Act), and yes there are
>> provisions for the poor to obtain this free of charge if they don't already
have a MA DL or ID.
>>
>> Viability of 3rd party candidates is somewhat subjective. And while
>> there are some articles on it, I was unable to find any hard data.
>> Personally I'd like to see viable 3rd party candidates, and would
>> hope this would increase voter turnout, but I can't find any hard
>> data supporting what I personally believe, or disproving it.
>>
>> So, my conclusion is that of the factors originally provided, the
>> data only supports a possibility that same day registration might
>> improve turnout. But, that there are other factors that would affect
>> turnout for the year looked at. Most notable of these other factors
>> would be voter interest, 2016 was a highly contentious election and
>> people turned out in greater numbers across the board.
>>
>> So voter interest is the key to greater turnout, not making it easier
>> (and increasing cost to the municipality). And frankly, nothing turns
>> me away more than the constant insults and innuendo (often
>> unsubstantiated), and harping on the same thing over and over after
>> it been reported (Willy). How about we work more to address what
>> needs to be done and get clear concrete answers from those running.
>> Not the vague feel-good statements all politicians seem to live on.
>>
>> I've included a spreadsheet of the information which includes the
>> sources of the data. Please draw your own conclusions.
>>
>> Randall
>> (No longer a town meeting member)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Framingham Government Forum - FramGov - Massachusetts [mailto:
>> framgov@forums.e-democracy.org] On Behalf Of Randall Cohen
>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 3:32 PM
>> To: 'FramGov'
>> Subject: Re: [FramGov] More nerdification
>>
>> To accurately represent that information, and to be sure the
>> statistics are not being manipulated, you have to list all states,
>> which attributes they have, and their % turnout. You should probably
>> also provide the number of people who register/vote on voting day who
>> are also registered/vote in another jurisdiction (not saying it
>> happens, but it would be an easy way to commit voter fraud).
>>
>> For example, "A history of viable third-party candidates" could be
>> both an additional motivator and an indication of greater involvement.
>> So this could be the sole reason for greater turnout. But you've
>> hidden the significance of this by grouping them all together.
>>
>> Statistics are easy to manipulate if you limit the information or
>> control how it is presented.
>>
>> A great example of this is how the UK manipulates its murder rate
>> statistics. In the US, the murder rate is based on deaths reported by
>> law enforcement as murder (including manslaughter). But in the UK the
>> murder rate is based on convictions, if it goes unsolved, plea
>> bargained away, or the suspect is just not convicted, then it's not
>> counted. Doesn't make them any safer, just makes then think they are safer.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Framingham Government Forum - FramGov - Massachusetts [mailto:
>> framgov@forums.e-democracy.org] On Behalf Of Eric Cigan
>> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 3:09 PM
>> To: <email obscured>
>> Cc: Stan Wulf; FramGov
>> Subject: Re: [FramGov] More nerdification
>>
>> Nationwide, the states with the highest voter turnout share one or
>> more of the following attributes
>>
>> - Early voting
>> - Vote by mail only
>> - Registration allowed on voting day
>> - A history of viable third-party candidates
>>
>> I lived in Oregon when the state went to exclusively to vote by mail.
>> It was kind of sad to lose the traditional voting stations, but
>> Oregonians as a group are generally much less attached to tradition
>> than folks east of the Rockies. I found vote by mail to be very
>> convenient, and Oregon has taken numerous measures to prevent voting fraud.
>>
>> --Eric Cigan
>> District 5, Framingham
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Bill Rabkin <<email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stan,
>>>
>>> Sorry, but voting by absentee ballot is not a replacement for early
>> voting.
>>> According to the Massachusetts Secretary of State's website
>>> "Absentee Ballot Information" page
(www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleifv/howabs.htm):
>>>
>>> Massachusetts allows voters to vote by absentee ballot if they:
>>>
>>>
>>> - will be absent from your city or town on election day, and/or
>>> - have a physical disability that prevents your voting at the polling
>>> place, and/or
>>> - cannot vote at the polls due to religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Presumably, the number of voters who meet at least one of these
>>> qualifications is small compared to the number of registered voters
>>> who would avail themselves of the opportunity to vote before
>>> Election
>> Day.
>>>
>>> Bill Rabkin
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Rabkin
>>> Pheasant Hill, Framingham
>>> About/contact Bill Rabkin: http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>>> p/3ngpu58AObiO4hUmmIqJHX
>>>
>>>
>>> Be sure to read our charter at http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>>> groups/framgov/charter.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>> Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>>> r/topic/6B1OawJRUMk0i2f52l4aGt New Topic:
>>> framgov@forums.e-democracy.org
>>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *** Work or live
>>> in Downtown Saint Paul, MN? Take our survey:
>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/downtownstpaulsurveyft
>>>
>>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting:
>>> http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Cigan
>> Framingham
>> About/contact Eric Cigan: http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>> p/7n50RlJAyQ7qZwA0a0Gd3p
>>
>>
>> Be sure to read our charter at http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>> groups/framgov/charter.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>> r/topic/1No0yR1QOSGwbbAj8TPYGF New Topic:
>> framgov@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *** Work or live
>> in Downtown Saint Paul, MN? Take our survey:
>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/downtownstpaulsurveyft
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting:
>> http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Randall Cohen
>> precinct 15, Framingham
>> About/contact Randall Cohen:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/randallcohen
>>
>>
>> Be sure to read our charter at http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>> groups/framgov/charter.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>> r/topic/5r7WyTORiyxxH7jnhiCJ5b New Topic:
>> framgov@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *** Work or live
>> in Downtown Saint Paul, MN? Take our survey:
>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/downtownstpaulsurveyft
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting:
>> http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>>
>> ― 1 file ―
>>
>> 📎 early voting turnout.xlsx (20kb)
>>
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/file/pk89wTz6ZHbEf4LIKuGodt677dh-
>> 5c4-2ERoYNG/
>>
>>
>>
>> Randall Cohen
>> precinct 15, Framingham
>> About/contact Randall Cohen:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/randallcohen
>>
>>
>> Be sure to read our charter at http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>> groups/framgov/charter.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Reply: Reply-All or visit http://forums.e-democracy.org/
>> r/topic/5NR7PuRCkvLTkiCWdo9L3b New Topic:
>> framgov@forums.e-democracy.org
>> Digest: Subject: digest on
>> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
>> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *** Work or live
>> in Downtown Saint Paul, MN? Take our survey:
>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/downtownstpaulsurveyft
>>
>> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting:
>> http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Eric Cigan
> Framingham
> About/contact Eric Cigan:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/7n50RlJAyQ7qZwA0a0Gd3p
>
>
> Be sure to read our charter at
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov/charter.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2fAMgSHqjLEIwETUkdGHQ6
> New Topic: framgov@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov
>
>
>
>
> *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *** Work or live in
Downtown Saint Paul, MN? Take our survey:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/downtownstpaulsurveyft
>
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
>
>
>
> Randall Cohen
> precinct 15, Framingham
> About/contact Randall Cohen:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/randallcohen
>
>
> Be sure to read our charter at
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov/charter.
>
>
> ------------------------
> Reply: Reply-All or visit
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5s44F6ctNXtD89IgiCNl7X
> New Topic: framgov@forums.e-democracy.org
> Digest: Subject: digest on
> Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
> Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov
>
>
>
>
> *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *** Work or live
> in Downtown Saint Paul, MN? Take our survey:
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/downtownstpaulsurveyft
>
> Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
Eric Cigan
Framingham
About/contact Eric Cigan:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/7n50RlJAyQ7qZwA0a0Gd3p
Be sure to read our charter at
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov/charter.
------------------------
Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4WZSWnxWmfxZlmcr6H0Zaj
New Topic: framgov@forums.e-democracy.org
Digest: Subject: digest on
Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov
*** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *** Work or live in
Downtown Saint Paul, MN? Take our survey:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/downtownstpaulsurveyft
Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net