>>23840557from what I posted:
>"Four design characteristics make this survey uniquely valuable for our purposes. 1. It has an enormous sample size, which makes feasible sub-population analyses (n=32,800 in 2008 and n=55,400 in 2010). 2. It included a question about citizenship status. 3. Many non-citizens were asked if they voted, unlike other large surveys which filter out non-citizens before asking about voting. 4. Participation and registration were verified for at least some residents in nearly every state for the 2008 survey..."so a large sample size of citizens and non-citizens (n=88,200 in total) were directly asked if they voted, and non-citizen voting was found, which the authors state was significant enough to sway the result
and from what you posted:
>"The Brennan Center conducted in-depth interviews with more than 40 election officials."and concedes:
>"To be sure, local elections officials may not be aware of every incident of ineligible voting, and the tools at their disposal are imperfect"so n=40, and they asked these 40 people "did you see any non-citizens voting?"
in states where asking them for ID is LARGELY ILLEGAL?! how could they "see it"?
I don't know what your level of education is, but I really hope you can see that these are NOT equivalent in terms of evidence
what you posted is... biased, flawed garbage, with a tiny sample size, and a massive, glaring flaw that the authors hope you're too stupid to notice:
these officials are operating in an environment where they mustn't be racist, mustn't assume, and face legal action if they ask for proof of citizenship(!)
how could they notice if non-citizens were voting unless they magically knew who was and wasn't a citizen?
and to contrast this, when people in huge numbers are actually just asked directly, we see there's significant non-citizen voting happening!
come on now
are you trying to win an argument here, or are you trying to find the truth?
that "audit" is a joke
