Longfellow writes "I'll give ArtPress the benefit of the doubt to say that he/she is not actively seeking to mislead, but is only a misinformed liberal tool and has the intellectual curiosity of a 3rd grader. A fraud "case" can involve multiple voter registration violations, sometimes in the hundreds or thousands, so the math claims and calculations makes no sense."
It is true that a case may involve multiple violations. It is also true that cases brought do not mean guilt and conviction-- as the story I linked above notes, a number of the cases were simply thrown out. But, hey, for the sake of the argument, let's assume all 311 cases the Republican Lawyers Association found over fifteen years averaged 5,000 violations each (which is way, way too high). And, assume that in all elections held nationwide over those fifteen years only a billion votes were cast (and this is way too low, probably by nearly 50%). With an extraordinarily high estimate of fraudulent votes and an extremely low estimate of the number of votes cast, it would still come out to a fraud rate of .0015%.
There is not a significant problem in this country with voter fraud. The fact that Longfellow and others here prefer the comfort of anecdotal stories over actual cases and data indicates who truly has the "intellectual curiosity of a 3rd grader."
Widespread, common voter fraud is a virtually non-existent problem. In an effort to back up Republican claims of widespread fraud, a week or so ago the Republican National Lawyers Association issued a report documenting all voter fraud prosecutions for all elections in the last decade. Apparently, Republican lawyers are unfamiliar with the definition of a "decade," as they actually included all voter fraud prosecutions since 1997, or fifteen years. But, whatever. In those fifteen years in all elections-- local, state, and federal-- held in the U.S., well over a billion votes were cast. The total number of fraud cases.... 311, or less than .0000003 percent. Understand, this is from a Republican group that supports these crappy laws and this was actually the best they could come up with. The only actual problem these laws are meant to fix is that way too many low-income and senior citizens just don't vote for Republicans.
As for Longfellow's "illegal aliens, felons, dead people, imaginary people and people who vote multiple times," these are all fraud cases and our Republican lawyer friends can only find 311 fraud cases in fifteen years, nationwide, with over a billion votes cast. These widespread cases exist only in your little mind, not in actual voting booths.
Rogers: The ideological glaze on your glasses is way too thick. The media analysis of the 2000 Florida election concluded the exact opposite of what you state. It concluded that no matter how one defined "a vote"-- a hanging chad, a partial hanging chad, etc-- Gore would have had more votes than Bush under every scenario if the same standard was used statewide. The only way Bush got more than Gore was under the "system" forced by the Supreme Court, i.e., that one system of what constituted a vote applied in some counties, and another standard applied in other counties. Nice try, but the report still exists and you might try reading it.
Perhaps if SF took the time to comprehend what Meador actually wrote, he would understand that he wasn't making fun of "Islamist terror," but was making fun of small minded Islamophobes.
"This world of ours... must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
A real Republican.
For the record, could you point to any research studies, eminent or otherwise, that actually compares learning loss among students on a traditional calendar to students on a balanced calendar? No such study has ever been conducted. What the research you refer to confirms is that kids know less on the first day of a new school year than they did on the last day of the previous school year. Learning loss, however, is not consistent over time, i.e., we do not loss X% of what we have learned, day after day, on into infinity. If that were true, none of us would remember anything within a few years after leaving school. Rather, eminent psych research indicates that most losses occur in the first two to three weeks after instruction ends, after which things level off. If this is true, and there is every reason to think it is, then it is not just "common sense" that losses over a 5 to 6 week balanced calendar summer are substantially less than over an 8 to 10 week traditional calendar summer. And, again, no research study has ever compared learning losses between balanced calendar and traditional calendar summer breaks. Ever.
CS: 1) With regard to "With that in mind the district has taken a leadership position on what it thinks is best for the students." - then why is MNPS going through with the facade of measuring public opinion on the issue?
2) With regard to "If the parents and community want more facts it is not the responsibility of the school district to present them."- this is an interesting/disturbing view of the role of public organizations to the public they are designed to serve.
3) With regard to "My question on this is, 'Who wants to stand up and say that more school days for students and more days of learning for teachers is a bad idea.'" -this is a lame straw man argument. There are school districts all over this country where students spend a more days in school than MNPS now and that provide a good deal more professional development while using a traditional school calendar. Do you honestly believe these things can only be achieved if a district uses a balanced calendar?
All Comments »
The SouthComm Set
The City Paper |
Medical News Papers |
All contents © 1995-2014
City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation