3 ms·

See the second section, "Data", in the linked-to page: "The data used for this paper is from the 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, base

See the second section, "Data", in the linked-to page: "The data used for this paper is from the 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies, based on the files released by Stephen Ansolabehere, 2010 and Ansolabehere, 2011. The 2008 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) were conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix of Palo Alto, CA as an internet-based survey using a sample selected to mirror the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population. In both years survey data was collected in two waves: pre-election in October, and then post-election in November. The questionnaire asked more than 100 questions regarding electoral participation, issue preferences, and candidate choices." Further down, they point out that some non-citizens had the right to vote in about half the states around 1900; that non-citizens legally voted in every presidential election until 1928; and that their sample was dependent on people's self-reported citizenship status, but the characteristics of self-reported non-citizens who voted matched those of self-reported non-citizens who didn't vote.

ryanobjc 10y ago
Additionally there is no discussion about selection bias here. For example, we know that since it's an internet survey, everyone on the survey has the internet or an ability to use the internet (eg: public library access?). That rules out a non-trivial portion of the population. Additionally, not everyone answers or engages in these surveys. So there's an additional bias. A lot of immigrants take a low profile, and dont vote, and don't engage civically, such as surveys. So missing those. In the end, the paper is assuming the people who self selected into taking this survey are representative of the entire population, and that might be true for the more common things, but for less common things, not so true. A good example is to fill up a jar with white marbles. Then put another 50 red ones on top. Now take the top 100 marbles as a "sample". You'd conclude from this that the jar is 50% red, when its actually like 5% red! This is the classic sampling bias/error. Since the paper doesn't touch this at all, I assume the authors know their conclusion is bogus and they don't want to go here because it'd destroy their headline: "NON CITIZENS GAVE OBAMA THE PRESIDENCY". So much shit in this paper, yet it masquerades as science.

ryanobjc 10y ago

Additionally there is no discussion about selection bias here. For example, we know that since it's an internet survey, everyone on the survey has the internet or an ability to use the internet (eg: public library access?). That rules out a non-trivial portion of the population. Additionally, not everyone answers or engages in these surveys. So there's an additional bias. A lot of immigrants take a low profile, and dont vote, and don't engage civically, such as surveys. So missing those. In the end, the paper is assuming the people who self selected into taking this survey are representative of the entire population, and that might be true for the more common things, but for less common things, not so true. A good example is to fill up a jar with white marbles. Then put another 50 red ones on top. Now take the top 100 marbles as a "sample". You'd conclude from this that the jar is 50% red, when its actually like 5% red! This is the classic sampling bias/error. Since the paper doesn't touch this at all, I assume the authors know their conclusion is bogus and they don't want to go here because it'd destroy their headline: "NON CITIZENS GAVE OBAMA THE PRESIDENCY". So much shit in this paper, yet it masquerades as science.