Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
The Iowa "election" was a caucus and not an election. No one won anything other than the right to say they "won" the Iowa caucus. The number of voters is very small compared to the number of registered voters in the state and the results of the caucus don't even translate to real live delegates. It's like comparing apples and bowling balls.
Also, stating that out of state people voted, you don't know how many, but it was "significant" is pretty much a meaningless statement. Statistics allow us to quantify want is actually "significant" so that when you hear a number that may or may not sound impressive, someone can actually scientifically tell whether or not it is. Random numbers mean shit.
|
I've never been in a state that caucused, so no, I don't know the specifics. However, the point remains the same, regardless of how you want to nitpik the details - according to the local news, enough dead and out of state "voters" to make a statistically significant difference "voted" in a recent South Carolina election. The Republican race is very tight. Small amounts of dead voters could change the outcome. Does that constitute a big enough problem to "disenfranchise people"? Where do we draw the line? Do we have to have an election where it is proven after the fact that the fraudulent votes in fact would have changed the election to actually say we have a problem?