Stream: Illegal Voting by the Numbers. Updates

Stream: Illegal Voting by the Numbers: Nobody knows how many illicit votes were cast.

This article is meant as an introduction to what counting illicit votes would look like. It is necessarily incomplete, but it is long. And given the reaction, it is important. I thus will leave it as the main post for two days (no post tomorrow, in other words; besides, this is four posts in one).

Update Make sure to see the full article at Stream. It is long (3,000 words), but you’ll see it is a bare introduction.

How many votes in the past presidential election were cast illegally or fraudulently? Some say none to few. Others, such as President Trump, say a couple of million. The mainstream press insist there is “no evidence” for systemic problems in the electoral process. Yet evidence does exist, only that evidence is disputed or ignored.

Here is the story so far. President Trump lost the popular election by more than two million votes. Yet shortly after the election he said, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” He later estimated the fraudulent margin to be some 3 to 5 million.

He also said , “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!”

Mr Trump’s claims launched waves of horrified apoplexy in the press (who at this early point know no other reaction). The New York Times was reduced to using the L-word, i.e. “liar”. The Washington Post said Trump’s charge “is not supported by any verifiable facts”. Even politicians in his own party, such as Senator John McCain, said “I obviously have seen no evidence of illegal voting.”

Various rhetorical tricks then played out in the mainstream press to give the impression illegal voting was rare in the extreme, or even non-existent. An academic study which estimated there were some 800,000 illegal votes from non-citizens was excoriated. Much evidence in plain site was just plain ignored. Yet, so far, there has been no systematic attempt at estimating the illicit vote count, and such an estimate is required before dismissing or accepting Mr Trump’s claims. The best that can now be said is nobody knows the right answer.

Sloppy “fact” checking

[Dot dot dot.]

Kinds of bad votes

Before investigating a contentious academic study of electoral fraud from non-citizen voting, it helps to list the main sources of fraudulent or improper votes in Presidential elections:

  • Legal non-citizens; i.e. those who are here legally but who are ineligible to vote but do anyway;
  • Law-breaking non-citizens; i.e. those who have broken laws to come here and are not in the formal immigration pipeline and who vote illegally;
  • The dead; which comprises both legal and illegal votes;
  • The fictional; i.e. names which are entirely made up;
  • The multiple; i.e. citizens who vote more than once;
  • Felons; i.e. citizens barred from voting.

The dead requires clarification. Some citizens vote early and legally and then die before the official election date. Searches afterwards might turn some of these folks up as “dead voters”. The culprit is early voting and not fraud or ill intent. Of course, names of the deceased can also be, and have been, used by the unscrupulous.

Direction manipulation, by ballot box stuffing and, if it were possible, by hacking, would largely fit under the fictional category. The Chicago example of running the same ballot through the counting machine, and the example of malfunctioning machines fit here.

In order to come to total illicit votes, estimates are needed from each source.

The dead and felons

The dead whose names have been used improperly do not appear to account for a large number of bad votes. Many dead people are registered, as Pew reported, but their names have not been discovered to have been systematically misused. Still, there is substance (and here) to the many Chicago jokes like this: “My father voted Republican all his life. Since he died he votes Democrat”. No one therefore knows the best estimate of dead voters, but the Pew study does give an upper bound.

[Much, much more at Stream.]

Go to Stream. Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!

Categories: Culture, Statistics

17 replies »

  1. John McCain, said “I obviously have seen no evidence of illegal voting.”

    I have’t either but then, like McCain, I haven’t looked to hard.
    Allowing non-citizens to obtain a driver’s license then use that license as proof of voter eligibility should raise concerns about the integrity of the process. It certainly indicates a potential problem. I doubt anyone has really looked to see if it hasn’t occurred.

    Trump is willing to investigate and he won! No one can insinuate he’s only doing so in protest. The Democrats have much to lose if significant voter fraud is uncovered. They cater to the alien population — presumably for voting support. Gotta wonder how that works.

    People also need to get over Trump’s tendency to exaggerate. In his former life he was a salesman. Asking high to make the settlement ground higher is second nature to one whose career has been selling. It’s called “sticker shock”. Makes “bargains” seem like bargains even if higher than initially expected.

    He also seems quite good at misdirection. Throws steaks over the fence to distract the guard dogs.

  2. Voter impersonation fraud is the justification for voter-ID requirements. These are resisted consistently by Democrats on the claim they will disenfranchise minorities. Most recently, the NAACP announced they will fight Trump’s call for vote fraud investigations.

    In that light, based on data from this reference, if you total all the electoral votes from states with no voter ID requirement of any kind, it adds up to 293 — 23 more than needed to be elected president.

    No ID required to vote at ballot box: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

    Of those states, Trump won Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wyoming and 1 district in Maine.

  3. Regarding ID requirement…you know it’s funny. When I went to pay my property taxes in a city run by Democrats, there was a sign that said I could not pay with cash. I had to use a check.

    Guess what you need to have a checking account?

    Is it ironic or just plain silly that you need an ID to pay property taxes but not to vote?

  4. DAV wrote:

    “The Democrats have much to lose if significant voter fraud is uncovered. They cater to the alien population — presumably for voting support.”

    Precisely for voting support. It’s Tammany Hall writ large. In a democracy the route to power is secure voting blocs. Importing dependent foreigners means votes and power. Trump is right to target an important sector of the enemy’s power base – illegal aliens. I hope he presses this one hard.

  5. I suppose I should be concerned with illegals voting, but what concerns me more is all the efforts to register the unmotivated (motor voter, etc), and the mail-in voting to make it super convenient for the unmotivated. I would prefer these unmotivated people just not vote at all, like it used to be. In the very liberal state I live, they are even planning to change the mail-in ballots to prepaid postage! Maybe the Demoncrats should cut to the chase and send out pre-voted ballots.

    Clearly those white folks in SteveE’s YouTube video are too stupid to vote.

  6. Milton Hathaway:

    … but what concerns me more is all the efforts to register the unmotivated (motor voter, etc), and the mail-in voting to make it super convenient for the unmotivated.

    For years what has concerned me is voters who believe the supermarket checkout tabloids are “real news”. I’ve long thought regular readers of The National Enquirer should have the same voting eligibility status as convicted felons.

  7. Alan Watt, re The National Enquirer:

    I don’t know about previous elections, but this time, The National Enquirer was full-on in support of President Trump. They ran several well-timed, good articles about him during the campaign. While the writers and editors of The National Review were busy spreading false witness and hateful gossip about Donald Trump, TNE had facts and some of the neat things he has done over the years that show his genuine character.

    I used to joke about The National Enquirer too, but they did a good job for him and came way up in my esteem because of it.

  8. When the Democrats oppose voting fraud investigations and voter ID they have a plain conflict of interest that disqualifies them from any say in the matter other than how an investigation might be conducted. No doubt that say will be obstructionist, but still must be considered, if only for recognizing how NOT to conduct it.

  9. “My father voted Republican all his life. Since he died he votes Democrat”.
    Of course the dead vote democrat. After all, they are brain dead.

  10. Tina, re: National Enquirer:

    Now you’re making me feel bad. So support for Donald Trump goes with stories about space aliens and predictions of the psychics? I confess I haven’t actually read an Enquirer article since about 1979 (“Jealous Computer Zaps Top Doc”).

    I just checked the online site and found a single article titled “President Trump: More Plans For First 100 Days” sandwiched between “Paula Dean Saved My Life — Declares Anorexic Beauty Queen!” and “Nancy Reagan & Frank Sinatra: Secrets Of The White House Affair”. And this was after about 30 other stories centered on celebrity gossip. But no stories on space aliens, unless you count Hollywood stars (queue MIB quote “well that’s not much of a disguise”).

  11. Hi Alan, I don’t know about their online, but it was the paper versions that actually made me buy it for the first time ever LOL. So all over America, every week for months, every checkout stand (and every hair salon)had big, new, pro-Trump anti-Hillary articles, right alongside their puzzles and UFO and celebrity gossip. TNE also went after Ted Cruz, the other GOP candidates, and any celebrity who dissed Mr Trump.

    The one that got me started was “The Donald Trump Nobody Knows” in January 2016. We were already supporters, but I thought it was a brilliant coup for him. It was great! Here’s the online list of articles they did. Those that look like “celebrity gossip” are actually counter-attacks on celebs that came out against Trump: (Unfortunately, they don’t seem to post the whole articles online, but they all ended up making Trump look like who he really is: a gentleman, loving husband and doting father, who has overcome adversity and likes to help people with “a hand up”. )

  12. I have noticed that the way often to divine the intended sense of Jersey’s sometimes obscure comments is simply to insert parenthetically somewhere into the text, ‘assuming you all share my left wing preconceptions.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *