Well you have zero since you didn't read or comprehend the study.

This is greater than zero. Thanks for playing.





You would, but they don't give a fuck how many non-citizens vote, so long as they vote for Democrats.

it's a question of what is more likely to be true and who are more reliable sources

i trust jon stewart and john oliver over santara



This post was edited by duffman316 on Mar 7 2016 03:39pm

Had some time to read further and found this gem which you glossed over.



In other words voter ID by your same source is ineffective. That's good to know (we have known that for a long time though).

For the record, I don't doubt there's some instances of non citizens voting. It would be an anomaly if there weren't. I think he meant there aren't many who vote.


Here's a few more things I found that were interesting



This is another example of what I said about the authors hyping results. 828 self-reported non-citizens is not a "modest" sample size. It's pathetically tiny. I understand that it's the data they got from this survey, but it's definitely not something we can draw national conclusions from.



They admit it as well, while NC may have been affected due to the ridiculously close margins, on the whole we cannot use the data to understand if other races were swayed.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 7 2016 04:17pm

this really is a cartoon

Ghost voting in the House - standard hypocritical lies - not surprised, you can smell the shit they eat when they start talking, even from Canada.

Have you ever volunteered at a poll? Checking IDs under current frameworks is usually to verify spelling to match the person with the voter roll in front of the polling judge and has nothing to do with indicating voter eligibility. With universal requirements will come standard poll judge training on how to determine eligibility from the ID.



2.2% of 12,000,000 illegals is over a quarter million illegal votes.

Don't you think of yourself as smart? Why are you linking to breitbart? Do you think there's a reason for why you can't get this info anywhere else? There's a huge amount of people everywhere trying to prove that voter fraud occurs, but for some reason, breitbart is the only place with the scoop.

It's statements like this that prove you didn't read your own source since the applicability of this data on a national scale is specifically cautioned against.



Even then they can only find a study with less than 1000 respondents and have to purposefully leave out the caveats of the data analysis.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 7 2016 06:13pm

Because linking to Breitbart is more fun than my first source, which was numbersusa. You know... the whole heads popping thing that's going on.



Zero cares given.