Originally Posted by Techgeek81
Not to nitpick but "all the people I know" is a phrase, not a term.
More importantly, the problem is that you stated something as a fact without having a factual base for it.
For all you know, I could have spent my summers in college traveling the country taking polls in shopping malls. If I included all of those people in "all the people I know" because I had met them, learned their names and spoken with them for a few minutes, then my sample size would be significant, national and within the time that I was in college.
I could be using random, anecdotal evidence.
The problem is that you don't know which of the two is the case but you stated your position on my statement as an absolute without verifying first.
You also haven't responded to the free ID thing yet. Should I just assume we're going to ignore that because it disproves your argument about poll taxes? The money (tax) is removed from the equation so it can't be a poll tax but you need it to be a poll tax in order for your argument to make sense so we won't talk about the actual facts?
Is that how this debate works?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm new to the forum. I'm just trying to learn the rules.
Let's keep focused. You did make this statement Voting Fraud
This is a statement, not a phase or term, stop flip-flopping.
Notice the pronoun "I", "I" selected the criteria of people "I" know to reach the conclusion that voter ID is not a suppression of citizens voting.
I replied, "The people you know are not a representative sample of the population."
Therefore the sample of the population you provided, now you have expanded, people "I know", to shopping malls across all 50 states I polled still has bias and random sampling issues. Therefore is not representative, much less any basis in reality.