Margin of Fraud: Non-Citizen Vote May Determine U.S. Elections
Played a role in the election of Obama and Senator Al Franken.
Non-citizens, who should not be voting, wield significant influence in American elections according to a new report from the Washington Post. Can you guess which party they typically vote for?
Jesse Richman and David Earnest reported, here are some highlights:
Could non-citizens decide the November election?
In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races…
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
That’s kind of a big deal, isn’t it? Oh, and then there’s this:
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
Allahpundit of Hot Air asks some legitimate questions here:
Does this about wrap things up for GOP participation in comprehensive immigration reform next year? Border hawks have argued all along that mass legalization of illegals is a ploy by Democrats to fast-track voting by a group of people who, on balance, support left-wing policies. Now here’s a study suggesting that not only is illegal voting by non-citizens already happening, in some key cases it’s actually decisive. How does a House Republican who’s on the fence about amnesty justify voting yes to his conservative constituents after this? And how does Obama justify an executive amnesty to centrists and independents who are skeptical but otherwise undecided?
Here’s another question: Will Democrats finally admit that voter fraud exists?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Will Democrats finally admit that voter fraud exists?”
They depend on voter fraud. The ends justify the means so they will not admit it because it is a moral issue, not an ignorance issue. They must suppress the truth.
Democrats will admit that voter fraud exists just as soon as the fraudulent votes favor Republicans.
Until that happens, Democrats will continue to insist that voter fraud is a myth.
This is not a new phenomena. Following the Election of JFK – there was solid evidence of widespread fraud in key midwestern states. Eisenhower – who did not really like Nixon – went to Nixon and said that if he wanted to challenge the election he would stand by the GOP nominee.
Nixon decided it would be too hard on the country to contest.
They will never admit, but it sure will be interesting to see the post-mortem on Colorado’s new “print your own fraudulent ballot” election..
“Will Democrats finally admit that voter fraud exists?”
Well, hell no!
For one thing, that’s what they’ve been told to insist. “Voter ID laws are solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist…bwaaak…” The DO (racial) Justice swears it in courts all across the land.
For another, denying the truth gives them an excuse to call voter integrity proponents “racists”. THAT’s always good fun AND cheap fuel for their false sense of moral superiority.
And, most importantly, they RELY on voter fraud. If they admit the problem exists, then people are going to DO something to deal with it effectively.
Just lying it away is SOOOOoooooo much better.
If the Democrats take the 2014 elections, it will be because of voter fraud, and armed insurrection will be justified, as will be general terrorism against Democrats.
Armed insurrection and terrorism? Really now?
Nobody will convince me that “terrorism” is justified.
Before we go to any violence, we have to apply the very powerful weapon of a campaign of civil disobedience.
Simply withdrawing our support for a gangster government would be unstoppable, and would include a refusal to pay any taxes.
Aleister: Will Democrats finally admit that voter fraud exists?
Most people understand that voter fraud can occur. It should be possible for the sides to agree to reasonable improvements in the electoral process, but the measures Republicans have proposed concerning voter ID do not address the real problems of voter fraud, but are designed to suppress Democratic voter turnout.
See what I mean by my earlier comment?
TX-rifraph: The ends justify the means so they will not admit it because it is a moral issue, not an ignorance issue.
It’s doubtful the vast majority of Democrats believe that the ends justify the means. There are extremist in both major parties and both political polls.
Right, and the moderate muslims . . . .
Many U.S. Muslims vote Republican.
Right again: I see and hear lots of them campaigning both for Republicans and against the supposed radicals among them.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Unfortunately, the Democrats’ extremism always seems to run in defense of an all-powerful State, rather than in defense of the liberty of individuals.
The problem with current Republican proposals is that they don;t go far enough in preserving integrity of the system and suppressing the turn out of those ineligible to vote in the United States.
edgeofthesandbox: The problem with current Republican proposals is that they don;t go far enough in preserving integrity of the system and suppressing the turn out of those ineligible to vote in the United States.
If you mean Republican proposals don’t actually address the problem, then yes.
Oh, goodie…
The same lying one note samba.
Zachie, you’re BOTH boring and a liar.
BTW, what ARE those Deemocrat/Collectivist proposals to stop voter fraud?
Ragspiere: what ARE those Deemocrat/Collectivist proposals to stop voter fraud?
Never heard of the Deemocrat/Collective. However, the authors of the study suggest that many non-citizens vote because they think they are eligible, so they recommend education to reduce this problem. The authors also say the Voter ID won’t solve this problem, as many non-citizens had ID. It seems efforts should also be directed towards verifying citizenship at registration, but these efforts should not create an undue burden for eligible voters.
Never heard of the Deemocrat/Collective.
That’s because your an ass, and a political hack that doesn’t understand the first thing about legislative history. See Obamacare proposals when they couldn’t get 60 votes.
That being said, please answer a question: Exactly HOW were these “ineligible” voters registered in the first place?
They may have received “valid” ID, but the SYSTEM in place for registration failed miserably because it registered an “illegal voter.” So, that being the case, lets talk about repealing “motor-voter,” shall we? Or, in the alternative to repealing “motor-voter” let’s talk about giving non-citizens a form of ID that allows them to do the things that Democrat part members always scream about (like driving, opening bank accounts, buying beer, etc.) while specifically NOTING that they are “non-citizen” members of society.
Chuck Skinner: They may have received “valid” ID, but the SYSTEM in place for registration failed miserably because it registered an “illegal voter.”
We have already noted that improvements in voter registration are required. As Ragspierre pointed out, there is strong support for the integrity of the ballot, so reasonable compromises should be sought.
And yet, every time someone brings up the concept of a “non-citizen” version of an ID, Progressives, Marxists and Statists start screeching about how it would be “racist” and have a “disparate impact” on those of “Hispanic” heritage.
And don’t think that no one noticed that you completely ignored my extensive breakdown of the the flaws in the Forgiarini study, after making response after response prior to my analysis that “We responded to Chuck by referring to the original studies.”
People did notice, and recognized that you are both a pompous ass AND don’t understand how to critically analyze basic experimental science for result bias.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/obamamedia-found-someone-other-than-bush-to-blame-for-ebola/comment-page-1/#comment-548361
Chuck Skinner: the Forgiarini study
The Forgiarini study? This thread concerns Richman and Earnest.
Yes. It does. However, you’re ignoring the point, which is: your bull-shit skills leave something to be desired, and that everybody ought to take your statements with a healthy boulder of salt, because they usually leave out some KEY piece of information that COMPLETELY destroys your entire narrative.
Chuck Skinner: Yes. It does.
So this subthread is a just a diversion.
More a review of your basic dishonesty and scientific illiteracy.
I always find that amusing and illuminating, personally.
Thanks, Chuck!
“but the measures Republicans have proposed concerning voter ID do not address the real problems of voter fraud, but are designed to suppress Democratic voter turnout”
Oh, please. That canard is really getting old. Voter ID does not suppress voting. It won’t help much since it appears that most illegals have ID, but the voter ID law itself is not the problem. It’s the fact that Dems think cheating is just fine.
JoAnne: That canard is really getting old.
In fact, a recent GAO study found there about a 2-3% dip in voter turnout due to Voter ID laws, higher for minority groups. See GAO, Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws 2014.
Another interesting study showed that legislators, who were asked whether someone could vote without a Drivers License, were more likely to respond to someone with an Anglo name than Spanish name. See Mendez & Gross, Revealing Discriminatory Intent: Legislator Preferences, Voter Identification, and Responsiveness Bias, USC Research Paper 2014.
BZZZZZ!! WRONG! They compared a Presidential election year to a non-presidental election cycle. Digging deeper, they compared a 2nd term presidental cycle to a 1st term presidental cycle if I remember the study you’re citing correctly.
Either way, that “2-3%” is statistically well within the margin of error of standard deviations of voting patterns between elections.
You’re going to have to to better than that if you want to “prove” voter suppression.
Thank you, Chuck!
Chuck Skinner: They compared a Presidential election year to a non-presidental election cycle.
They compared 2008 to 2012, both presidential election years.
They also found that the rate of possession of a state ID was about 84% to 95%, lower in minority groups.
don’t you love to pick apart liberal studies. either cherry picking variables to fit the model, or mixing data sets hoping no one will notice.. LOL.
Reminds me of the NJ Turnpike speeding study.
Too lazy to get an ID means their too lazy to vote.
Yeah, Zachie, I ripped your GAO study to pieces the other day, and you’re still back here flaking that POS.
This is why we know you to be the liar you’re demonstrating here AGAIN.
Patterico has a really excellent piece up, relating how INELIGIBLE foreign voters are not just accidents, but matters of cultivation.
http://patterico.com/2014/10/24/wapo-publishes-scientific-evidence-of-voter-fraud-on-a-massive-scale-as-previously-predicted-by-this-here-very-blog/
READ the comments, too.
ANOTHER thing you failed to mention is that these people need to be aggressively discovered and prosecuted…maybe deported…for what is a crime. Not a mistake. A crime.
And we know you’d lose your bladder control if there were commercials warning people of that before an election.
Ragspierre: Patterico has a really excellent piece up, relating how INELIGIBLE foreign voters are not just accidents, but matters of cultivation.
Don’t see where Patterico argued that. Did he forget that many of the non-citizens are children in his arithmetic?
READ, stupid. I said READ the comments.
“Most people understand that voter fraud can occur.”
That’s an interesting statement for two reasons…
1. you were here the other day repeating the lying-point that
“voter ID laws are a solution to a non-existent problem”.
2. voter fraud DOES occur, you lying SOS.
Ragspierre: You were here the other day repeating the lying-point that “voter ID laws are a solution to a non-existent problem”.
Voter ID addresses in-person voter fraud which is very rare, while inhibiting voting by eligible voters.
Zachy…Uummmmm…Dying to know how Valid Current ID inhibits Legal Registered Voters. How?
Gosh you’re full of crap, Zachie.
“Based on GAO’s review of studies by academics and others and information from federal and state agencies, GAO identified various challenges in information available for estimating the incidence of in-person voter fraud that make it difficult to determine a complete picture of such fraud. First, the studies GAO reviewed identified few instances of in-person voter fraud, but contained limitations in, for example, the completeness of information sources used. Second, no single source or database captures the universe of allegations or cases of in-person voter fraud across federal, state, and local levels, in part because responsibility for addressing election fraud is shared among federal, state, and local authorities. Third, federal and state agencies vary in the extent they collect information on election fraud in general and in-person voter fraud in particular, making it difficult to estimate the incidence of in-person voter fraud.”
You just pull your statements out of your butt.
Ragspierre: Based on GAO’s review of studies by academics and others and information from federal and state agencies, GAO identified various challenges in information available for estimating the incidence of in-person voter fraud that make it difficult to determine a complete picture of such fraud
So what you’re saying is that there is no evidence of significant in-person voter fraud.
No, asshole. People CAN read what I DID say.
You are just trolling. And you are screwed to the wall.
Again.
The engine that runs the Democrat voting fraud machine has been built over decades. Piece by piece, every piece of legislation passed in the last 50 years that deals with voting was designed to do one thing: create a legal conduit to mask voter fraud.
The leftist smirk when republicans scream about “voter I.D. laws”. Smirking because they have institutionalized 9 different ‘untraceable/unprovable’ ways to win close elections via fraud.
The democrats have always know that someday they might lose the voter ID fight. That’s why they are diversified.
From the Soros Secretary of State Project, to leftist judges in key places to vote flipping algorithms for touch screens, they’re more than ready if they lose the ID battle.
Browndog: The leftist smirk when republicans scream about “voter I.D. laws”.
The paper cited in the original post indicates that Voter ID laws won’t address the problem.
Exactly, we need to go further.
edgeofthesandbox: Exactly, we need to go further.
Further in not addressing the problem of voter fraud, but further in suppressing the Democratic vote?
No, not in it’s entirety. But, it does address that problem.
I think you may be missing the point. The reason democrats fight so hard on the voter ID front is not because they are afraid they’ll lose their ability to steal elections.
It’s because if they ever admit there is voter fraud, it puts their other “projects” in jeopardy.
Browndog: No, not in it’s entirety. But, it does address that problem.
Numerous studies have shown that the problem of Voter ID fraud is negligible, while substantially reducing the voting of legitimate voters. Even this may have a reasonable compromises, but Republicans have pushed these laws without regard to finding such compromises.
Browndog: The reason democrats fight so hard on the voter ID front is not because they are afraid they’ll lose their ability to steal elections.
The reason Republicans push so hard for Voter ID laws, despite the lack of evidence of Voter ID fraud, is because they apparently want to make voting difficult for Democratic-leaning groups.
Zachie, you just chant that same lie.
Voter integrity laws are NOT a “Republican” thing. They are supported by people of all political persuasions and all races.
You can look up the polls. But you won’t, because you like your cheap lie.
Ragspierre: {Voter integrity laws} are supported by people of all political persuasions and all races.
Sure, including many Democrats, supporting the original assertion that reasonable compromises are available. However, Republican political leaders, rather than seeking compromises that reasonably ensure the integrity of the vote, have pushed Voter ID laws knowing it will reduce Democratic votes.
More chanting of the same lie.
You really are a bore.
“The reason Republicans push so hard for Voter ID laws, despite the lack of evidence of Voter ID fraud, is because they apparently want to make voting difficult for Democratic-leaning groups.”
Democrat voters aren’t intelligent enough to get ID?
If you’re worried about the 1-2% of people that don’t have an ID, help them get one.
gene: If you’re worried about the 1-2% of people that don’t have an ID, help them get one.
According to the study cited above, the rate of possession of a state ID was about 84% to 95%, lower in minority groups. Many are poor and elderly, so there can be significant costs involved.
That’s a lie, and you’re a liar.
The STUDY SUGGESTS. It never FINDS, you lying sack of excrement.
Partly because the study is RIDDLED with assumptions, based on other studies it studied, all of which it recognizes could aggregate to…nothing valid.
Ragspierre: The STUDY SUGGESTS. It never FINDS
The word they used was “shows”.
“Nine of these studies of driver’s license and state ID ownership in selected states and the one nationwide survey showed that, depending upon the study, estimated ownership rates among registered voters ranged from 84 to 95 percent”
“Nine of these studies of driver’s license and state ID ownership in selected states and the one nationwide survey showed that, depending upon the study, estimated ownership rates among registered voters ranged from 84 to 95 percent””
Voter registration rolls are not being purged of inactive voters. NY discovered 850 voters over 149 years old. How many other dead are on the rolls? How many that moved out of state? What the study shows is nothing because the Voter rolls are not accurate.
@genes
Yes, voter registration rolls should be purged. I agree 100%.
However, that study is looking at driver’s license and state ID ownership, which is not related a’tall to voter registration rolls. Therefore, stating “What the study shows is nothing because the Voter rolls are not accurate” is a non sequitur.
There is plenty of electoral fraud. Voter fraud, though? It appears not so much.
More than zero non-citizens voting is too much. Non-citizens should have different markings on their official IDs precisely so they can’t use them to vote.
@randian
I agree that more than zero non-citizens voting is too many. I can’t think of anyone who would disagree with that statement, though.
After the 2000 election a newspaper found that over 600,000 people were registered in NY and FL, they also found that 25% of them voted in both states. That is voter fraud.
@genes
Link, please.
dh, the study states that it compared DL and ID possession to the VOTER registration to get rate of registered voters possession of ID. The inaccurate voter rolls would make an accurate assessment of ID possession by registered voters improbable.
You are so right, Dog. Back in the mid-80s I belonged to a labor union – had to to work where I worked. I won’t go into the reasons why -too long and convoluted – but our local had to go into receivership and the SEIU leadership stepped in to direct our new election. There was a huge fight between the International and our local members over who was going to be elected President of the local. So the local union bosses had to teach us how to look for fraud at both the voting sites and the counting sites. That was a huge wakeup call to me and changed my political leanings which at that time leaned left (young and dumb).
“GAO’s analysis SUGGESTS that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states’ voter ID requirements. GAO found that turnout among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and Tennessee than it declined in comparison states—by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee—and the results were consistent across the different data sources and voter populations used in the analysis.”
Liar.
Plus, not the vanishingly TINY percentages the GAO report REPORTED from other sources.
And note you are soiling your panties over…nothing really.
Nothing at all, but your own lies.
“Nine of these STUDIES of driver’s license and state ID ownership in selected states and the one nationwide survey showed that, DEPENDING upon the study, ESTIMATED ownership rates among registered voters ranged from 84 to 95 percent”
You really have trouble reading, huh?
Well, and dealing with the truth.
On the other hand, you seem to have trouble remaining civil.
Yeah. I hate liars.
Call it a flaw.
I also LOVE trolls. You wanna play…???
Good times it will be, I’m sure.
Roll out the barrel of insults, my friend. When you’re losing on the merits, it’s always a sign of strength to turn to abuse.
The reasons that we are not remaining civil is that we have to debunk the half-truths and whole lies from the same trolls again and again and again. Those trolls have a distinct penchant for intellectual dishonesty. When called on said intellectual dishonesty, they suddenly try to change the topic or dissemble and lie about their prior claims, generally by making further claims wholly inconsistent with their prior statements.
I swear, it’s worse than dealing with the 9/11 truthers that claimed that the World Trade Center had to be an inside job, with no personal knowledge of engineering or metallurgy, and misrepresenting the statements of those with such knowledge in order to reach their twisted result.
“When you’re losing on the merits, it’s always a sign of strength to turn to abuse.”
I’ll have to take your word for it. I’m sure you’ve had a lot of experience.
The dems would like nothing better than to destroy the US citizen in every way possible.
There is an easy fix to this nonsense and that is to post in several languages that for an illegal to vote is a felony subject to fines/imprisonment and DEPORTATION at all of the polls.
The problem with that is that they no longer consider themselves illegal.
Of course, the liberal, democrat solution is to make everyone a citizen, or to remove that antiquated requirement altogether, as part of some “comprehensive” legislation.
Every illegal knows that deportation is a nonexistent threat so long as the Democrats are in power. Ergo, their need to keep the Democrats in power is one of the reasons illegals (and in many cases, legal non-citizens) unlawfully vote in our elections.
Here is where it gets interesting and frustrating.
Thanks to DACA, thousands of young illegal aliens can go obtain drivers licenses. A recent check of NC voter rolls revealed upwards of 100,000+ DACA voters based on a cross check with the DMV.
Now, technically they were DACA at the time they got their drivers license, but some could have achieved citizenship in the time period between when they got their DL, and when they registered to vote. (back to this point in a bit).
This argument made NC board of elections start checking them one by one (there is no batch process) against DHS “SAFE” system. Most of them came back “LEGAL” which I believe they interpreted to mean “Citizens”.
I have an issue with this. There is no way 100,000 NC individuals can obtain citizenship in just a few months or one year plus. Remember DAVA folk don’t have grounds for a green card, otherwise they would have one, or be in the process of applying for one. Not to mention, the hugh backlog of immigration paperwork which takes 6 months minimum.
So, my belief is either the government is rubber stamping citizenship of DACA! or NC is misinterpreting the return codes from their checks, but either way, NO WAY all these folks are OK to vote.
http://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/thousands-of-illegals-on-north-carolinas-voter-rolls/#comment-3040
http://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/tag/nc-dot/
Not enough time to check them all, or clear this issue before this election cycle 🙁
Of course.. forgot to mention the important bit.. When Holder got wind of states using the SAFE system to purge aliens, he closed it up. A lawsuit was necessary to regain access.
I’d love to see an article covering the legal aspect of these checks, interesting times.
NC State election Board recently found over 1,400 illegal aliens registered to vote in NC, plus records showing many of them had voted in previous elections. That shit and much like it will end quick when NC’s new voter ID laws kick in for the 2016 cycle.