4. Post a study which does not directly refute anything posted
Let me quote it since you seem to be unable to click on a link. It's about as direct as it can get:
This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman, Chattha, and Earnest (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.
https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveysOh no, I read it. Also I already directly responded to it as you already presented that in the Snopes article:
"the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election ranged “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.” Their “best estimate” is that 1.2 million or “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.”"
In short this Snopes hack job is largely focused on Trump's claims, not the veracity of the study itself, so you haven't debunked anything. The only attempt to even argue the veracity of the study itself is based on claims the surveyed parties "made mistakes" answering surveys, and the replies were just mistakes. So they went back and rejiggered the survey, and partially re-conducted it to get the desired result to try to claim the original was invalid.
This is classic massaging of statistics to get numbers you want, but I don't expect you to understand this if you think scientific journals qualify as "conspiracy sites". He simply found a way to widen the margin of error and then disappear real results into that gap, then look, poof, they are "invalid". The author even makes dumb statements like there were ZERO illegal immigrant voters, which tells me a lot about his credibility and bias right there.
Perhaps you aren't even reading your sources?
