When disaggregated by race, the state’s data show that 8.4% of white registered voters lack any form of DMV-issued ID, as compared to 10.0% of non-white registered voters. Looking at the letter sent by the DOJ to South Carolina, you’ll see that they brought this 20% figure out twice. Like a puffer fish that bloats its size to scare predators, the DOJ did the same thing with a 1.6% point difference to scare off critics. This statistical sleight of hand was necessary because the actual difference of 1.6 percent (10% vs 8.4%) was laughable to the public. be effectively disenfranchised.” A difference of 1.6 percent between black and white is now 20%. The letter (from the DOJ) says “minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to. That represents a “discriminatory effect” under the statute. Roughly 10 percent of blacks registered to vote don’t have a photo ID, and 8.4 percent of whites don’t. The data show, according to DOJ, that 1.6 percentage points more voting blacks don’t have a driver’s license than whites. Notice the word “any,” more on that later. In the objection letter, DOJ said that South Carolina did not meet its burden to prove that photo identification laws did not have any discriminatory effect. Christian Adams’ summary piece published on the tail of the DOJ’s pre-Christmas announcement. Now that you’re armed with the knowledge that the difference between low numbers is exaggerated, let’s set the record straight.įor a wider overview of the problems with the Department of Justice’s objection, you’ll want to read J. Unfortunately, the state of South Carolina was also bamboozeled by this simple math game and failed to expose what the Obama DOJ was up to. They used this same mathematical quirk to hide the truth about the actual statistics and the media dutifully repeated the ‘Holder Math’. This intentional obfuscation is exactly what the Federal Government and the Holder Justice Department did to the people of South Carolina. Now, in both of these examples, the simpler way to express our financial differences is to say “I have a dollar more than you” or by spelling it all out, such as “I have two dollars and you have one dollar.” The whole bit about ‘twice as much money’ or ‘100% more’ is just a way to obfuscate the truth that I only have one more dollar and it works only when the numbers are low. In both cases, I only had one more dollar but the lower the numbers, the more impressive I can make the difference sound. And of course, saying ‘ I have 1% more money‘ doesn’t sound that impressive. Move the decimal and you’ll see that 101 is 1% more than 100. In fact, I only have 1% more money than you. I still only have one dollar more than you but because the numbers are larger, I can’t pull my ‘twice as much money’ claim trick. Now imagine that you have $100 and I have $101. Here’s the quirky part - as numbers get bigger, this difference decreases. To get the ‘percent’ we just move the decimal point to the right two times and we get 100%. There’s a simple equation for determining this percentage difference for any two numbers. If I want to get extra-fancy, I could also say “ I have 100% more money than that person.” This is saying the same (misleading) thing as “I have twice as much” in a slightly different way. It’s true, of course – 2 is twice as much as 1 - but just knowing that I had twice as much money as someone else doesn’t really paint the whole picture. In an effort to sound more impressive, I could find a way to pump myself up by claiming that I had twice as much money as you. However, if I wanted to try to impress someone, just telling them that I was a dollar wealthier probably wouldn’t work. If you had one dollar and I had two dollars, I have one dollar more than you. To understand the math behind this, let’s start simply and look at two very small numbers – 1 and 2. If you replace the registered vote total with 239.2 million, you come out with the original 158.4 million votes that were certified.īut the funniest thing about this one is just.This entire scam – there’s no better word for it – is based an interesting but totally irrelevant math quirk when numbers are small, the difference between them is larger. The eligible voting population is approximately 239.2 million, so the math in this calculation falls apart right where the multiplication starts. Super appreciate that they gave the source, but if you actually look up that WaPo article, it very clearly says "As a share of the voting-eligible population," not "registered voters." All registered voters are eligible voters, but not all eligible voters are registered voters. That "2020 Election Turnout Rate" of 66.2% doesn't mean 66.2% of registered legal voters, it means 66.2% of eligible voters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |