Reply With Quote
...but the plan didn't happen. What is your point?
Oooh, you forgot BigPutin.
...but the plan didn't happen. What is your point?
Trash is ILLEGITIMATE
Elected by Assange, Comey, Kobach, redmap, SCOTUS gutting VRA
I always thought you were a got, CONFIRMED!
Boo Hoo, Boo.
President Donald J. Trump
Trash is ILLEGITIMATE
Elected by Assange, Comey, Kobach, redmap, SCOTUS gutting VRA
This swearing in looks pretty legitimate Boohoo.
It's a necessary formality in the way Trash/Repugs' hated govt works.
Trash is illegitimate, and he knows it, that's why one of his deepest fears is being considered so. He's a total sicko.
Boutons the less, phobic tough guy!.
Did she win yet?
You LieBoutons the less, phobic tough guy!
I'm strongly Live and Let Live, which includes LGBTQ. I use your language, like knitter and got, to make sure all y'all ckickers' understand.
You use those words, not me. lol coward.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...#storylink=cpyFirst, legislative power does not depend on the votes of the people. One party wins just half the votes but 100 percent of the power. The GOP has a huge legislative majority giving it absolute veto-proof control with that tiny advantage in the popular vote. The other party wins just a handful of votes less and 0 percent of the legislative power. This is above and beyond the way in which state legislators are detached from democratic accountability as a result of the rigged district boundaries. They are beholden to their party bosses, not the voters. Seventy-six of the 170 (45 percent) in bent state legislators were not even opposed by the other party in the general election.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...#storylink=cpySecond, democracies do not limit their citizens’ rights on the basis of their born iden ies. However, this is exactly what the North Carolina legislature did through House Bill 2 (there are an estimated 38,000 transgender Tar Heels), targeted attempts to reduce African-American and Latino access to the vote and pernicious laws to constrain the ability of women to act as autonomous citizens.
Enjoy playing with those legos, snowflake.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...#storylink=cpyThird, government in North Carolina has become arbitrary and detached from popular will. When, in response to losing the governorship, one party uses its legislative dominance to take away significant executive power, it is a direct attack upon the separation of powers that defines American democracy. When a wounded legislative leadership, and a lame-duck executive, force through draconian changes with no time for robust review and debate it leaves Carolina no better than the authoritarian regimes we look down upon.
So that is the summary of some of the Replublican efforts at destroying democracy.
Let's dig into the details and supporting evidence.
Main website:
https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/
The Electoral Integrity Project is an independent academic project based at Harvard University and the University of Sydney. The EIP project is directed by the founding Director, Professor Pippa Norris, and governed by an International Advisory Board. The project is administered by the EIP Project Coordinator, Ms. Alexander Kennett. The work has been generously funded by many foundations and partners, notably the Australian Research Council Laureate Award.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Since its inception in mid-2012, the Electoral Integrity Project has focused upon three issues:
When do elections meet international standards of electoral integrity?
What happens when elections fail to do so?
And what can be done to mitigate these problems?
EIP has sought to produce innovative and policy-relevant scientific research that achieves international standing in the social sciences and leads to a significant advancement of capabilities and knowledge about elections, democracy, and autocracy.
No group claiming to support electoral integrity can be taken seriously as long as they accept money from George Soros. His constant meddling in international politics compromises the integrity of the electoral process in every country he tries to subvert.
First methods and design of study.
https://www.electoralintegrityprojec...atured-datasetMETHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN
To examine how any problems varied by state, and whether registration and balloting facilities influenced the perceived quality of elections, the study used an expert survey to compare assessments of the 2014 and 2016 elections across American states.
For the 2014 study, the study stratified all US states based on their population size and the proportion of the Republican vote in 2010, and then used a random sampling procedure to select 21 states. For the 2016 study, all states plus DC were included.
Electoral laws and voter registration procedures were classified by state, as well as their levels of party compe ion and voting turnout, facilitating multilevel analysis to determine whether perceptions of electoral integrity vary according to types of context.
Fieldwork using the PEI-US questionnaire was conducted during the month following polling day. The PEI-US-2016 survey was compiled from responses received from 726 election experts in total. The online survey questionnaire includes 49 core items on electoral integrity. These are used to construct the overall 100-point standardized Perceptions of Electoral Integrity Index and similar indices are created for each of the 11 stages in the electoral system.
Core survey items:
https://www.electoralintegrityprojec...e-survey-items
Either their methods and data sets hold up to standards and scrutiny, or they don't.
If they told you that drinking bleach was bad for you, I am sure you would go right out and guzzle some Chlorox, because Soros funded them right?
That is the fallacy of ad hominem. Outright rejecting information and arguments based on the source is weak sauce.
(edit)
Don't drink bleach. It is bad for you. Just want that to be clear.
What a ridiculous comparison. The fact that drinking bleach can potentially kill you isn't a political opinion. The claim that a Republican-run state is "destroying democracy" and is just as totalitarian as third-world dictatorships is a political opinion. And when a supposedly "independent" and "non-partisan" group is putting out partisan hit pieces, of course it's important to start asking questions - like, for instance, who's paying them to spew this drivel.
The combination of their absurdly hyperbolic claims against Republicans and all the money they take from the most prominent left-wing donor in the world makes it impossible to take them seriously. It also renders their methods and data sets meaningless. We all know Soros isn't going to pay the big bucks for methods and data sets that contradict his narrative.
If the parties were reversed and the Electoral Integrity Project was being heavily funded by the Koch brothers, we all know you wouldn't be spamming their study incessantly. You are a partisan hack, just be honest for once and admit it.That is the fallacy of ad hominem. Outright rejecting information and arguments based on the source is weak sauce.
By the way, here's what a professional statistician has to say about the Electoral Integrity Project's methods and data sets:
About that bogus claim that North Carolina is no longer a democracy . . .
North Carolina is not even the lowest-ranked state! Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Arizona are lower.
Hmmm. Whassup with that?
Here's the international map from The Year in Elections, 2014, by Pippa Norris, Ferran Martinez i Coma, and Max Grömping:
There's North Korea in yellow, one of the countries with "moderate" electoral integrity. Indeed, go to the chart and they list North Korea as #65 out of 127 countries. The poor saps in Bulgaria and Romania are ranked #90 and 92, respectively. Clearly what they need is a dose of Kim Jong-il.
Let's see what this measure actually is. From the report:
The survey asks experts to evaluate elections using 49 indicators, grouped into eleven categories reflecting the whole electoral cycle. Using a comprehensive instrument, listed at the end of the report, experts assess whether each national parliamentary and presidential contest meets international standards during the pre-election period, the campaign, polling day and its aftermath. The overall PEI index is constructed by summing the 49 separate indicators for each election and for each country. . . .
Around forty domestic and international experts were consulted about each election, with requests to participate sent to a total of 4,970 experts, producing an overall mean response rate of 29%. The rolling survey results presented in this report are drawn from the views of 1,429 election experts.
OK, let's check what the experts said about North Korea; it's on page 9 of the report:
Electoral laws 53
Electoral procedures 73
District boundaries 73
Voter registration 83
Party and candidate registration 54
Media coverage 78
Campaign finance 84
Voting process 53
Vote count 74
Results 80
Electoral authorities 60
Each of these is on a 0-100 scale with 100 being good. So, you got it, North Korea is above 50 in every category on the scale.
Who did they get to fill out this survey? Walter Duranty?
OK, let's look more carefully. In this table, the response rate for North Korea is given as 6%. And the report said they consulted about 40 "domestic and international experts" for each election. Hmmm . . . 6% of 40 is 2.4, so maybe they got 3 respondents for North Korea, 2 of whom were Stalinists.
That 2014 report mentioned above gave North Korea a rating of 65.3 out of 100 and Cuba a rating of 65.6. Both these numbers are higher than at least 27 of the 50 U.S. states in 2016, according to the savants at the Electoral Integrity Project.
Political science, indeed.
What went wrong here? It all seems like an unstable combination of political ideology, academic self-promotion, credulous journalism, and plain old incompetence.
http://andrewgelman.com/2017/01/02/a...r-a-democracy/
In short:at buying into a Soros-funded study from a group that unironically believes that North Korea and Cuba have fairer elections than over half of the states in the US. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the "party of science" and the Republicans were the "anti-intellectual" party?
he's libertarian
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
