January 27, 2017

"Voting Fraud Inquiry? The Investigators Got Burned Last Time."

I'm reading this op-ed in the NYT by Michael Waldman, who is the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. Waldman looks back at efforts by the Justice Department during the Bush II administration. Voter fraud was a priority, and, as Waldman tells it, the failure to bring lawsuits led to firings.
Soon scandal erupted. At one congressional hearing, Attorney General Gonzales answered “I don’t recall” or some variant 64 times. In August 2007, after his top aides quit or had been fired, he resigned.

All this should rattle the new administration.... The president of the United States is peddling conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy for political gain. Lessons from recent history suggest that the ultimate victims of such a witch hunt will be those who pursue it.
Meanwhile, over in The Washington Times, I'm seeing "Trump argument bolstered: Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds":

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by [political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University] said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump....

Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll: the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov. Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted.

Three professors at Old Dominion University — Mr. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest — took these answers, did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens, about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million....

170 comments:

Larry Day said...

Imagine that.

Chuck said...

Both points I made yesterday.

First, Jeff Sessions had better be a lot more careful than the Loose Cannon in Chief, in crafting an investigation that could actually lead to meaningful legislation, as opposed to a wild media food fight.

And second, this is a follow-on to the link I provided in which Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation pointed out the possibility of a significant number of "non-citizen" votes. Nothing like Trump's reckless charges, of course.

And as usual, I was ridiculed on both counts.

Matthew Sablan said...

Well, now-a-days, answering "I don't recall" no longer leads to resignation. It leads to being runner up to the presidency.

mccullough said...

The US attorneys under W was about prosecutions of specific incidents of alleged voter fraud. It's like determining the number of people who smoke pot by looking at arrests for possession. The survey data indicates that a significant percentage of non citizens vote. It's understandable since many states voter registration forms don't inform them that non citizens can't vote.

Based on the survey data, a non criminal investigation is warranted into noncitizen voting, double voting, and dead votes. And the voting rolls throughout the country need to be more effectively and efficiently updated to remove those who are dead, those who have moved, and non citizens.

David said...

The Constitution does not require that a person be a citizen in order to vote. Subject to some constitutional requirements, voting qualifications are set by the states, and in the mid 19th century many midwestern states allowed aliens to vote. (This was part of attracting settlers to their territories.)

I am waiting for some blue states to open voting to aliens. Or maybe once he secures the border, Trump could encourage states to allow legal resident aliens to vote. Watch out lefties. That would alter some voting patterns, doncha think?

Fernandinande said...

Soon scandal erupted. At one congressional hearing, Attorney General Gonzales answered “I don’t recall” or some variant 64 times. In August 2007, after his top aides quit or had been fired, he resigned.

I thought that was about firing prosecutors.

SGT Ted said...

"The president of the United States is peddling conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy for political gain."

You mean like the Democrats and the "Russians hacked the election" narrative designed to undermine Trumps win?

Or like the "Hillary won the popular vote" narrative, designed to undermine the Electoral College system and Trumps win?

Do these clowns even think this stuff through?

harryo said...

My mother used to try and get us to eat peas, by saying: "800,000 Chinese are starving, and would kill to have these peas."

Our response was always the same:

"Name five!"

MikeR said...

Gosh, that article said that millions of people could be disenfranchized by new voter ID laws. Who knew?
Seriously, though, I heard repeatedly after the election that the recounts were justified because, What's wrong with checking carefully? So I think a solid investigation is a good idea, and no one should object. Though I see that the NAACP has pledged to resist, for some reason.

MikeR said...

Truth is that a lot of Americans think that there is a lot of voter fraud; Trump is repeating a common meme. It would be good to clarify it. If it turns out that there isn't, make that very clear and public; no one would be happier than me.

Chuck said...

David said...
The Constitution does not require that a person be a citizen in order to vote. Subject to some constitutional requirements, voting qualifications are set by the states, and in the mid 19th century many midwestern states allowed aliens to vote. (This was part of attracting settlers to their territories.)

I am waiting for some blue states to open voting to aliens. Or maybe once he secures the border, Trump could encourage states to allow legal resident aliens to vote. Watch out lefties. That would alter some voting patterns, doncha think?


Federal statutory law dictates that only citizens can vote in federal elections. 18 U.S.C. sec. 611.

Chuck said...

btw, David;

I think that if California opened its voting for state elections to all including legal and illegal aliens, no one would be able to tell the difference.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

So 800,000 American voters were cancelled out by 800,000 Mexican Citizens' votes. No big deal if you won California by 800,001 votes. But that also means the down ballot LaRaza guys became unbeatable, and can do whatever they want to do to Gringos in Safe Districts.

Balfegor said...

Confirming massive illegal voting, as a statistical matter, is different from identifying specific people who could be held responsible criminally (other than perhaps a handful of people who, conceivably, could be proven not only to have registered to vote, illegally, but actually to have voted). I'd be surprised if there were a conspiracy that could be tied to actual illegal voting -- rather, the elements of such a plan have all taken place in the public view: opposition to efforts to clean up the voter rolls, and opposition to any sort of verification of ID (or citizenship) at the point of voting.

At that point, it's sort of on autopilot: the only question is what percentage of the millions of foreigners residing in the US legally or illegally decide to take advantage of the opportunity and vote. There's something like 40 million foreigners resident in the US (I don't know whether that includes illegal immigrants or is just legal immigrants), so an infraction rate of, say, 1% would still give 400,000 illegal votes. You'd have to adjust that for voting age, but even so, let's call it 300,000. I wouldn't be surprised if 1% of foreigners don't even realise it's illegal for them to vote in a federal election.

great Unknown said...

An independent investigation conducted by the IG and Office of Professional Responsibility after Gonzales's resignation concluded that the attacks on Gonzales were a politically motivated witch hunt.

Which was to be expected with Schumer leading the attacks on Gonzales.

And as can be expected from the NYT,more false news [i.e., lies].

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Enh. Every study that has actually looked for voter fraud has found it. Heck, the NYT turned up nearly a thousand double-voting "snowbirds" almost without looking. Ron Wyden's claim that voting by mail is safer is even worse. And, yes, states like CA that don't check citizenship at registration and allow anyone registered to vote without question make fraud inevitable. Why don't people get all this?

Bay Area Guy said...

This is so simple, and the Dems are so dishonest on this issue.

Look -- we see graffiti on warehouses and industrial buildings, right? Unless there's a videotape catching the dude in progress, it's impossible to find out who did it, right?

So, there's very few convictions for graffiti, but all sane folks agree there's still graffiti. Whether it rises to a "problem" or not, depends on how much there is, and how much you have to spend to paint over it.

There's roughly 11 Million illegal aliens in this country. Most are politically aligned with the Democrat Party, because of the lucrative welfare benefits they get (free schools, free food, free medicine, etc, etc).

So, are there stringent or lax procedures to prevent these 11 Million illegal aliens from registering to vote? In California, it's laughably lax. And, the Dems prevent any audits.

So, it's reasonable to infer that the massive increase in illegal aliens in California correlates nicely with the massive increase in Dem votes in California over the past 20 years.

The key is registration + absentee ballots. The question is how many illegal aliens have registered to vote? The only way to find out is to audit the voter registration rolls. If the audit is done, you will find double-state registrants, dead-voters, voters who've moved, and likely, a bunch of non-citizens.

In Montana, this probably isn't that big a problem. In California, it surely is.

MayBee said...

And, yes, states like CA that don't check citizenship at registration and allow anyone registered to vote without question make fraud inevitable. Why don't people get all this?

I know!
People here illegally were a central focus of this campaign. If they could easily vote in the last election, why would they *not*?

Original Mike said...

Election security is clearly too lax. I support a careful investigation so we know where we stand but my big fear is that they will cock it up.

aritai said...

I’m sure the party of stupid bullies are yelling at themselves today. They just moved the discussion onto their adversary’s turf. And stepped in a cow patty the stench of which will follow them everywhere. Think Trump lies? When the opposition’s captive press organ just froze this admission in the voter’s mind, which they were inclined to believe anyway, given everyone has an election they think went the wrong way. And after the investigation we’ll get “true the vote, legislation that will help even the innocent like T’s relatives avoid stupid paperwork mistakes. Which will cripple the Stupid parties opportunity to rig elections mayor Daly like forever. Couldn’t happen to nicer folks. I wonder if in every press room this morning each reporter stretches out across his desk and begs his/her boss to just kick me please, like hitting a bad dog who is moping because s/he knows they’ve been really really bad feel better. How is it we, the best of the best, smartest of the smart can be so stupid relative to this yokel from nowhere.

Francisco D said...

Chuck is apparently a Republican lawyer and election observer from Detroit. At least, that is what he claimed.

Well, he's probably from the burbs. The city is a burnt out, corrupt hellhole that probably has no registered Republicans. He disingenously thinks election fraud is all about non-citizens voting. It's only partially so.

Election fraud is also about ballot stuffing (which Chuck apparently never noticed) and dead people voting. (They are not really zombies, Chuck, just Democrat operatives filling out absentee ballots in a back room - again something you seem willfully unaware of).

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Balfegor, it's way more than a "handful." I read only this morning that something like 6% of people called for jury duty (off the voter rolls, natch) in eight VA counties were found not to be citizens, and a sizeable fraction of those had voted multiple times.

rhhardin said...

Hey, they pay taxes. No taxation without representation.

Matthew Sablan said...

"just Democrat operatives filling out absentee ballots in a back room - again something you seem willfully unaware of)."

-- It would be a shoddy, fly-by-night vote fraud scam to literally fill out absentee ballots the same place poll workers from the opposing party are, even if you think he's probably the only Republican in 5 square miles.

walter said...

Do we have a questionnaire going to those 200,000 felons McAulife conveniently removed voting restrictions from?

Christy said...

Reading all the voter fraud coverage, I realized I may still be registered to vote in Baltimore County, thus double registered. Never occurred to me to unregister. Does anyone actively unregister? Funny thing is, after I moved I continued to download books from the Baltimore County Library for a year or so until they canceled my card. Somehow the library found out I was gone. Surely the election folks can figure this stuff out.

Fernandinande said...

harryo said...
My mother used to try and get us to eat peas, by saying: "800,000 Chinese are starving, and would kill to have these peas."
Our response was always the same:
"Name five!"


Survivor, Thomas Laxton, Wando, Garden Sweet, Mr. Big.

And just because I'm generous, Oregon Sugar Pod #2.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Does anyone actively unregister?"

-- I tried. The first two years I officially was no longer a Delaware resident. I still, as recently as last year (so nearly a decade now), get calls from state government organizations in Delaware thinking I'm still a resident.

AprilApple said...

Does this mean I get to vote in any country?

Isn't that the progressive-corruptocrat notion. It's Ok for illegals to vote in the US, so hey - anyone can vote anywhere!

exhelodrvr1 said...

The states know if you are a resident, and where you live, when it comes to filing state income tax forms. Just cross-check those vs. the voter registration. That would then give a list of exceptions that need more in-depth checking.

Mick said...

Of course the media comes out with the usual "there is no evidence..." when they are not even looking for any evidence. The FACT is that a number of states, as practice, give Driver's Licenses to illegal aliens. With those driver's licenses they attain voter registration. FACT. Millions of illegal aliens vote in Federal elections illegally, whether the MSM wants to look for the evidence or whether they prefer to gaslight.
NO ONE BELIEVES THEM, and Trump is setting up the law requiring that all states obtain proof of the right to vote, perhaps by a FREE national citizenship card. The next SCOTUS justice will be on board. Why can't you all see the long game here?

exhelodrvr1 said...

In a state like California, where they don't check citizenship when you register, you can get official IDs (DL) without being vetted, no one cares if you vote and they won't prosecute you if you get found out, you are being encouraged to vote, and it is in your personal best interest that Clinton be elected, why would illegal aliens NOT vote?

roesch/voltaire said...

I agree the election was rigged. Those 10,000 migrant milkers in Wisc. voted for Trump giving him the state, that and plus Robert Monroe from Shorewood who voted multiple time for Trump make his whole election illegitimate.

mccullough said...

States are permitted to access Post Office, Social Security, and Homeland Security Alien Verification databases as part of their efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls. Only a handful of states do this.

Fabi said...

How do you know Trump's claims are reckless, Chuck? That's the whole point -- we don't know the scope.

eric said...

There is another angle to this which is not mentioned.

Many years ago I lived in California. During the election, the Republican running for Senate put out a flyer. It said if you're an immigrant you can't vote. The media went nuts. They said an immigrant is a citizen who immigrated. Clearly the flyer meant non citizens, but since when did truth matter to the media?

Our own president recently said no one is coming after you if you're not a citizen and you vote.

After the 2008 election I asked a lot of non citizens if they voted and almost all said they voted for Obama.

My point is this, many don't even know is or understand it's illegal for them to vote. A lot of misinformation out there.

Trump and his administration is getting paid he information out there. Not a citizen? Not only can you not vote, but, we are coming after you.

This is why the media is freaking out. They want to stop this message from getting out.

Gusty Winds said...

...is peddling conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy for political gain.

You mean like the Russian "hacked" our election? The whole fucking election. The electoral states of Fla, NC, WI, MI, OH, IA and almost Minnesota?

Trump campaign coordinated with Putin? Go blow.

There is voter fraud and everyone knows it. The only unanswered questions are its extent and its beneficiaries.

eric said...

Blogger Fabi said...
How do you know Trump's claims are reckless, Chuck? That's the whole point -- we don't know the scope.


My issue with our media, and Chuck, and a whole host of Republicans is that they often put style over substance (they could have said that better) and the style is all that ever gets talked about. At least where Republicans are concerned.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How do you know Trump's claims are reckless, Chuck?"

-- 3 million is a LOT of illegal votes. There were something like 130M votes in total. Yeah, it's only... what, 2%-3% of the total, but still. A lot. It's a put up or shut up sort of claim, and it looks like Trump's willing to try to put up.

jdniner said...

130 Million votes. Average fraud rate across the board in the US is about 10 percent. So 13 million fraudulent votes is probably the upper limit. People don't become saints enter they enter the polling both. Just that the test standards for voting fraud are set to ignore 99 percent of the cases.

Mark O said...

Goodness. Why would someone who is in this country illegally break the law?

Gusty Winds said...

Now the professor from UVA is wishing he never published his findings.

Probably getting his balls busted on campus.

"The researchers found that 6.4 percent of non-citizens actually voted in 2008 and another 2.2 percent in 2010.

Those figures sound alarming, but Richman pointed out that non-citizens are just a fraction of the U.S. population, at about 20 million adults.

“They maybe make up — at the very, very high end — 1 percent of an electorate,” Richman said.

Even if non-citizens attempted to vote at the same rate last last, and every single one of them had voted for Clinton, Richman said they would not have cost Trump the popular vote.


Popular vote schmopular vote. In 2016 Michigan, Wisconsin, NH, and Penn were all less that 1% margins. 3 for Trump, 1 against.

Find the truth and fix it.

Fabi said...

For clarity -- fraudulent votes of all varieties are included in the three million figure.

Fabi said...

Mark O with the early thread winner!

roesch/voltaire said...

Gusty right your are, those illegal migrant milkers in Wisc who voted for Trump swung the state red by just enough margin; it is an illegitimate election just like Trump says.

Mac McConnell said...

Government had time to audit Tea Partiers, they've got time to audit voter registration records.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
How do you know Trump's claims are reckless, Chuck? That's the whole point -- we don't know the scope.


Because, while there is at least some sound evidence, with a provable methodology that would lend itself to further investigation about "non-citizen voting" in numbers that would be worthwhile to investigate, no such evidence exists for "dead people voting" or "illegal aliens voting."

btw; I am one of those people who pretty much always use the term "illegal aliens" to describe illegal aliens. But Trump (and the tinfoil hat crowd like Mick) are so wedded to the idea of "illegal aliens" he can't stop talking about them. Even when the accurate, measurable thing is "non-citizens." It's actually consistent with Trump's ongoing muddling of the fact that most of the illegally residing in the U.S. are NOT Mexican drug-runners who snuck in across a dark border with no wall. The majority of people residing in the U.S. illegally are people who entered legally and who have now overstayed their visas, etc.

Back to "voter fraud;" there is an issue, I suppose, concerning persons who are registered in multiple states voting in multiple elections. And those numbers could be used to justify better and more stringent registration rolls.

But no matter what the case, Fabi, the freaking goal here is NOT to help Donald Trump somehow justify a victory in the mythical popular vote! The goal is to advance the cause of better voter id, more careful voter registration rules, and less same-day registration.

All things that Republican election lawyers have been promoting for years before Donald Trump ever thought of running for president.

Michael K said...

Millions of illegal aliens vote in Federal elections illegally, whether the MSM wants to look for the evidence or whether they prefer to gaslight.
NO ONE BELIEVES THEM, and Trump is setting up the law requiring that all states obtain proof of the right to vote, perhaps by a FREE national citizenship card. The next SCOTUS justice will be on board. Why can't you all see the long game here?


Yup, Trump is playing chess and the left is playing checkers. Nobody thinks he is that smart and it may just be instinct on his part, but it will be a big deal when voter ID legislation passes.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Government had time to audit Tea Partiers, they've got time to audit voter registration records."

-- Different organization, I think, but fair point.

Original Mike said...

"...but it will be a big deal when voter ID legislation passes."

That's going to require getting rid of the filibuster. And it would be worth it.

Fabi said...

How do you know that's his ultimate goal, Chuck? I'd suggest you read Brer Rabbit.

Gusty Winds said...

These professors that did the study are now pussies.

They publish a number like 800,000. Although concentrated more than likely in areas where more undocumented people live (CA, IL) that type of number could swing a number of states in the electoral college.

Seems significant.

SDaly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

Its amazing the MSM will do investigate anything EXCEPT illegal voting by aliens or dead people. They just aren't curious. Just doesn't happen.

They are curious about whether someone related to Trump is double registered. They are curious about whether Trump at any time in his life said something that could used against him. They're VERY curious about that. How long did they have to search before they found the grab 'em by the pussy tape?

But voter fraud is like Hillary's e-mails. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.

rcocean said...

Illegal aliens are voting, everyone knows they are voting and the question is simply how many.

Trump says 3-5 million, we'll see what the real number is.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
How do you know that's his ultimate goal, Chuck? I'd suggest you read Brer Rabbit.


Fabi, the way that Trump speaks, I have no idea what his real goals are. Thinking about it just gives me a headache.


Fabi said...

We may be in agreement there, Chuck! :-)

StephenFearby said...

"...Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by [political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University] said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November."

That's based on the responses of the noncitizens who actually admitted (anonymously) that they had voted (illegally).

"...the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov.

Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/


I'd say a considerable number of the pool of noncitizens who responded to the YouGov question didn't trust either (1) that the data would remain anonymous (putting themselves in possible legal jeopardy or (2) even if they trusted assurances of anonymity, why create possible trouble for themselves and their fellow illegal aliens / green card holders by calling attention to their illegal activity?

This unmeasured "justified paranoia" quotient invites expanding the projected number of illegal voters even more.




Chuck said...

Original Mike said...
"...but it will be a big deal when voter ID legislation passes."

That's going to require getting rid of the filibuster. And it would be worth it.


Well, Congress doesn't get to rule on anything but federal elections, and even at that, most legislation on voting procedures is on a state-by-state basis. Federalism and all.

As far as voter id laws go, they are popular across party and demographic lines. Most polling suggests that most Democrats favor proof of id for voting. Also that most blacks favor proof of id for voting.

But again, those battles are fought on state grounds. Overseen by the Voting Rights Act, but see Shelby County v Holder.

Known Unknown said...

R/V: Wisconsin doesn't have 75 electoral votes.

eric said...

Blogger rcocean said...
Illegal aliens are voting, everyone knows they are voting and the question is simply how many.

Trump says 3-5 million, we'll see what the real number is.


I'd bet it's more of the legal aliens who are voting. They tend to be the ones tricked by democrats and the MSM that they can vote.

Known Unknown said...

Which means you can pretend Clinton won Wisky all day every day for the next four years.

Lewis Wetzel said...

The Brennan Center is incapable of being honest on the topic of voter fraud.
The Brennan Center developed the current definition of voter fraud used by the JD and most media outlets. This definition relies on intent, not just to vote illegally, but to intentionally vote illegally in order to alter the outcome of an election. Absent a confession, this standard is impossibly difficult to prosecute. Knowingly voting illegally because you hate one of the candidates or that candidate's policies is not voter fraud, according to the Brennan Center. Knowingly registering people who are not permitted to vote, and driving them to the polling place, and paying that person to vote for a certain candidate is not voter fraud, according to the Brennan Center. The Brennan Center is the corrupt politicians's greatest friend.
The Brennan center does not believe in one person one vote. It is an extremist open borders group, it believes that open borders and voter fraud are necessary to bring socialism to the United States.
Any opinion that the Brennan Center has on the topic of voter fraud is simply that -- an opinion, worth no more and no less than any other opinion.
They will do everything possible to make voter fraud easier to do and harder to prosecute, while they also attempt to block any investigation into the true extent of illegal votes being cast and counted.

I Callahan said...

Trump is setting up the law requiring that all states obtain proof of the right to vote, perhaps by a FREE national citizenship card. The next SCOTUS justice will be on board. Why can't you all see the long game here?

Am I supposed to be afraid of this? The "big brother is watching" horse left the barn a long time ago. The IRS knows where you are, banks, your cell phone transmits where you are, etc.

The idea of a national ID card just doesn't scare me anymore.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@StephenFearby

Great point. I remember taking the national drug use survey in HS. It was totally anonymous. The question was have you ever used marijuana? My answer was "no, never."

roesch/voltaire said...

Known-- people vote against their own interest all the time, why assume that the non-citizens, those milkers in Michigan for example, voted for Hillary? I believe they voted for Trump just as they did in Wisconsin.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump: 'Well, Congress doesn't get to rule on anything but federal elections, and even at that, most legislation on voting procedures is on a state-by-state basis. Federalism and all."

South Dakota on hold on Line 1 for Chuck. Please pick up the white courtesy phone. South Dakota on Line 1.

eric said...

Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
Known-- people vote against their own interest all the time, why assume that the non-citizens, those milkers in Michigan for example, voted for Hillary? I believe they voted for Trump just as they did in Wisconsin.


You may be right. We should definitely investigate to find out.

Original Mike said...

"Known-- people vote against their own interest all the time, "

Perhaps their opinion of what's in their own interest differs from yours.

I Callahan said...

the freaking goal here is NOT to help Donald Trump somehow justify a victory in the mythical popular vote! The goal is to advance the cause of better voter id, more careful voter registration rules, and less same-day registration.

Irony is not your strong point, is it? I mean, if the goal is to advance the cause, Donald Trump is the FIRST PRESIDENT to actually attempt this. You should be happy. However, BECAUSE it's Donald Trump, you have a stick stuck in your a$$.

It's getting to be where every response you have is so transparent that there's no point in reading your response.

Jack Richardson said...

From the abstract of the 2014 study entitled, Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?:

"This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections."

Mick said...

Chuck said,

"But again, those battles are fought on state grounds. Overseen by the Voting Rights Act, but see Shelby County v Holder".


Wrong again Chuckie (it's a habbit). The states have plenary authority to conduct Federal elections, except where those practices go against the Federal Constitution (See Bush v. Gore, and also McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1 (1898)). The Constitution reserves the rights of citizenship only to US Citizens and their progeny (along with some to LEGAL resident aliens) who are SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction, not merely WITHIN the jurisdiction.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supports anything anti-Trump: " Even when the accurate, measurable thing is "non-citizens.""

No. The accurate thing to say would be "people who voted but did not have a legal right to vote, including those who voted in multiple jurisdictions".

Dude, do you even logic?

Curious George said...

"Fernandinande said...
harryo said...
My mother used to try and get us to eat peas, by saying: "800,000 Chinese are starving, and would kill to have these peas."

I'd day give 'em mine! Brussels Sprouts, too.

I Callahan said...

Known-- people vote against their own interest all the time,

No they don't. Ever.

Birkel said...

Curious George:
Brussels Sprouts are delicious if they are cooked properly. Cooked properly is defined as "with bacon" and not overcooked. Granted, if they are prepared poorly, they are awful.

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 11:23 AM

And second, this is a follow-on to the link I provided in which Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation pointed out the possibility of a significant number of "non-citizen" votes. Nothing like Trump's reckless charges, of course.

And as usual, I was ridiculed on both counts.


Chuck, I followed your link and read the von Spakovsky article, which was superb. I recommend that everyone read it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/the-threat-of-non-citizen-voting

rcocean said...

"The Brennan Center developed the current definition of voter fraud used by the JD and most media outlets."

Technically any kind of "Fraud" must have intent. Legally "Fraud" has to involve a material fact, deliberate intent, and injury. But we're not concerned with that. We're just trying to eliminate dead people, illegal aliens, double voters, etc. from the registration roles and hence from voting.

Its obvious some sort of Federal law is going to be needed. Leaving it up to the State and Local Dems to keep illegals, non-citizens, dead people, etc. from voting is a non-starter.

Honesty isn't in them.

rcocean said...

I've finally figured out who "Chuck" really is.

Hi Senator Lindsey Graham.

Mike Sylwester said...

MikeR at 11:32 AM

I think a solid investigation is a good idea, and no one should object. Though I see that the NAACP has pledged to resist, for some reason.

Investigating voting fraud is racist.

walter said...

roesch/voltaire said...I agree the election was rigged. Those 10,000 migrant milkers in Wisc. voted for Trump.
--
"Migrants" or "illegal immigrants"?
(C'mon..you can say it now..)

JWH said...

It’s not just that George W. Bush’s Justice Department already went on a five-year hunt for evidence of voter fraud and only came up with 86 confirmed cases during that period — a finding consistent with other independent studies.

eric said...

Audit the vote.

Lewis Wetzel said...

The Brennan Center's definition of voter fraud:
“Voter fraud” is fraud by voters.
More precisely, “voter fraud” occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to
vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system.1

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf
If you go the ref, it is from a political scientist's pamphlet -- it's her opinion as a political scientist. She differentiates 'voter fraud' from 'electoral fraud', which is an attempt by an interested party to alter the results of an election.
The fact that the two definitions overlap is not recognized by her pamphlet, which was not intended to be a legal standard. The pamphlet was instead an attempt to describe the different ways that voting results may be tainted.
If you see a person rounding up homeless people, putting them in a van, and driving them to a polling place and giving them a pack of smokes after they have voted, according to the Brennan Center you have not witnessed voter fraud.

Birkel said...

JWH:
Things that are difficult to detect are detected infrequently. Everybody agrees that is true.

That does not mean the voting rolls should not be corrected to reduce the potential for voting twice, voting in the wrong jurisdiction or voting when one does not have the right to vote (for whatever reason).

Did you think you were making a good point?

Chuck said...

JWH said...
It’s not just that George W. Bush’s Justice Department already went on a five-year hunt for evidence of voter fraud and only came up with 86 confirmed cases during that period — a finding consistent with other independent studies.


Another liberal trope. As Hans von Spakovsky writes, "the Department of Justice has no procedures in place for a systematic investigation of these types of criminal violations..."

In other words, illegal voting is rarely found, because almost no one is looking for it any systematic way.

The fact is, it almost surely is a tiny fraction of all votes. Irrelevant, except in the narrowest of elections. And yet the system needs to run on trust and confidence. Since prosecutions of individual illegal votes are so rare after the fact (being such generally inconsequential offenses), it is all the more reason to act prophylactically, and vastly strengthen voter id and registration procedures.

boycat said...

You can tell that illegal voting is massive by the way the little piggies hysterically squeal and carry on at the mere suggestion of an investigation.

damikesc said...

First, Jeff Sessions had better be a lot more careful than the Loose Cannon in Chief, in crafting an investigation that could actually lead to meaningful legislation, as opposed to a wild media food fight.

Chuck, that assumes that Sessions could do any investigation carefully enough for the media to not just turn it into a wild food fight. I am not optimistic that it is humanly possible.

Enh. Every study that has actually looked for voter fraud has found it. Heck, the NYT turned up nearly a thousand double-voting "snowbirds" almost without looking. Ron Wyden's claim that voting by mail is safer is even worse. And, yes, states like CA that don't check citizenship at registration and allow anyone registered to vote without question make fraud inevitable. Why don't people get all this?

Ask them if the level of ID required for voting would be satisfactory, for them, if it was used to allow gun purchases.

Not discussing criminal records. Just ID. Would they allow non-identified people, or people with fraudulent ID, to buy guns. If it was done on a massive scale, would they be OK with that? If governments refused to participate in an investigation, would they assume it is no big deal.

furious_a said...


The Electoral System, well, the Democrat primaries, are so compromised that MoveOn.org has petitioned the UNITED NATIONS intervene and root out the corruption (they would know, right?):

Massive election fraud has occurred in the 2016 Democratic Primary in every state that has voted or caucused. We have seen our votes thrown away and never counted. We have seen voter registrations destroyed and hundreds of thousands of registered voters turned away at the polls. We would like the UN to conduct an audit of the rampant corruption that has occurred in the Democratic Primary. We want to maintain our right to elect our leaders in legal, open elections. Please help us receive justice.

I join with MoveOn.org and President Trump in calling for justice for millions of disenfranchised Democrat primary voters calling out for...uh...justice

Chuck said...

damikesc said...
...
Chuck, that assumes that Sessions could do any investigation carefully enough for the media to not just turn it into a wild food fight. I am not optimistic that it is humanly possible.

What I know is that Sessions' task (if it falls to him) is made more difficult from the get-go, with Trump making careless citations to studies that he hasn't read and probably wouldn't understand if he did. And with Trump lumping together illegal aliens, dead people and people with voter registrations in multiple states as "voter fraud." Oh, and with Trump claiming that he would have won the (meaningless, except to himself and the devoted "RESIST" crowd) popular vote but for "vote fraud."



n.n said...

boycat:

That may well be.

Don't look in the toilet. That was not a baby. It was a fetus, a colorful clump of cells, labeled as life unworthy.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Roesch/voltaire:

Known-- people vote against their own interest all the time, why assume that the non-citizens, those milkers in Michigan for example, voted for Hillary? I believe they voted for Trump just as they did in Wisconsin.

Can we just lose this "people voting against their own interests" thing already? People in (e.g.) San Francisco vote against their own interests all the time. I've seen them at it. But that doesn't register with the folks who only care about Kansas.

JWH said...

Birkel

No I am not trying to make a good point. There is always going to be some illegal voting in most elections. We just need to make sure that the voting is done in a reasonable and legal way.

LawGuy5000 said...

This study has been thoroughly debunked by reputable sources. It's an old study, it's not news, and I am curious why you chose to headline this Washington Times story?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/19/trump-thinks-non-citizens-are-deciding-elections-we-debunked-the-research-hes-citing/?utm_term=.2f9f47853fbd

Comanche Voter said...

Well Chuck if you live in California where I do, and many of the state or local offices give you a choice at election time between two Democrats (no Republicans need apply for the ballot, thank you very much) you might be more attuned to voter fraud.

I suppose it is statistically possible that 1,693 of the 1,700 voting precincts in the City of Los Angeles voted for Hillary over Trump. It's also statistically possible that the next five babies born in Los Angeles will have three hands. I don't know about the three hands---but the Los Angeles Times reports that just 7 of those 1,700 precincts were carried by Trump.
Hillary carried California by some three or four million votes over Trump. If California's voter totals weren't counted--Trump won the popular election.

If the votes in LA County, taken together with the four New York counties surrounding Manhattan were not counted, Trump won the popular election.

The residents of these blue coastal islands may be able in future to stand on top of their liberal towers and continue to sneer at the rest of the country--and they may even win more than a few elections. But don't tell me that the Democrat party---in its current incarnation is broadly popular. If they keep on keeping on, rioting in the streets, wearing pussy hats, and screaming at the top of their lungs "He's not my President!" then those blue islands are going to get smaller.

Jack Wayne said...

Illegal voting must be investigated and I hope it ends up with a national voting ID card. But the true root problem is in the Constitution. That poorly written document says that representation is for people, not just for citizens. Resulting in an apportionment that is skewed, allowing states with a large number of non-citizens to have more representation than they should. And the gerrymander results in very unrepresentative districts. Dump the current Constitution and make a better one!

Drago said...

Chuck: " It's actually consistent with Trump's ongoing muddling of the fact that most of the illegally residing in the U.S. are NOT Mexican drug-runners who snuck in across a dark border with no wall."

LOL

That is a very interesting and specific strawman you've created there Chuckie.

Let's break it down: Most of those who are illegally residing in the us are:
1) NOT Mexican drug runners
2) who snuck in across a dark border
3) with no wall

Well gee Chuck, you forgot to include the other key caveats:
1) Ambidextrous
2) Long flowing mane of hair
3) Likely to consume vast quantities of Grape Nehi

I mean if you are going to go to the trouble of constructing another strawman to make yourself look insightful might as well go the full nine yards.

Freder Frederson said...

And then of course there is this

If the votes in LA County, taken together with the four New York counties surrounding Manhattan were not counted, Trump won the popular election.

What, aren't those part of America?

Chuck said...

LawGuy5000:

Your reliance on that WaPo op-ed doesn't work on me.

I never subscribed to Trump's careless talk on the subject. I didn't mix up or conflate the Pew study. I didn't throw out any misleading figures.

It's always a lot easier for me to win arguments when I am not saddled with the usual Trump stupidities.

As for your criticism of the Richman, et al, study; you are free to claim that it doesn't support a solid number of presumed illegal votes cast by non-citizens. But I submit that it is suggestive, and warrants a much closer review of voter rolls for non-citizens.

Hans von Spakovsky suggested a number of practical measures to address potential and apparent problems. He didn't suggest a border wall, or mass deportations. He suggested these things (bear in mind that he wrote this in 2008; post-HAVA, but perhaps he'd word some of these things differently now):

•Congress and state legislatures should require all federal and state courts to notify local election officials when individuals summoned for jury duty from voter registration rolls are excused because they are not United States citizens. United States Attorneys are already under a similar obligation: Under the NVRA, they must send information on felony convictions to local election officials so that the felons can be removed from voter registration rolls.[68]
•All states should require anyone who registers to vote to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. This requirement should be identical to the federal requirement of proof for employment.
•ICE and CIS should comply with federal law and confirm the citizenship status of registered voters when they receive requests for such information from state and local election officials. If the agencies decline to do so, they should be investigated by Congress and the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for their failure to follow the law.
•The database, known as E-Verify, that is being used by U.S. employers to check the citizenship status of prospective employees should be made available to election officials and administrators of the statewide registration databases required by HAVA so that election officials can run database comparisons to identify registered voters who are not citizens.
•The DOJ should file enforcement actions against all states that allow an individual to register to vote when he or she has not answered the citizenship question on the voter registration form required by HAVA.
•Local district attorneys must be made to realize that registration and voting by non-citizens are offenses against the basic principles of our democratic system and that such cases must be prosecuted. CIS and ICE should also realize that all information they have on non-citizen voting-such as when immigrants applying for citizenship admit they have registered and voted or when illegal aliens who are detained are found to possess voter registration cards or other documents indicating they are registered to vote-must be referred to the DHS for institution of removal proceedings, to the DOJ for prosecution, and to the relevant election officials so that the individual can be struck from the registration rolls.
•The DOJ should conduct a survey of all state DMVs to determine which ones have rules and procedures in place that prevent non-citizens who apply for driver's licenses from registering to vote and then file enforcement actions against any state that refuses to comply with this requirement.
•A voter registration card should not be a valid identifying document to obtain a driver's license or employment.

Drago said...

Chuck: "It's always a lot easier for me to win arguments when I am not saddled with the usual Trump stupidities."

So much rich gooey irony packed into that sentence!

The Cracker Emcee said...

That's great Chuck but why would Democrats and lifelong Republicans bother? There's laws against murder but the practice is curiously persistent.

Fabi said...

"...made more difficult from the get-go, with Trump making careless citations to studies that he hasn't read and probably wouldn't understand if he did." Lulz

The Cracker Emcee said...

Chuck thinks that the people who benefit from the crime should also be the ones policing it. What could go wrong?

Drago said...

Freder: "What, aren't those part of America?"

Not to all the lefties who were waving "Make America Mexico Again" signs.

And don't get me started on La Raza and Aztlan.

But then again, I grew up in Southern CA within sight of the hills of Tijuana and most of my friends had family with a foot on both sides of the border.

Even in those days (which wasn't that long ago) I knew of illegal votes being cast.

Drago said...

The Cracker Emcee: "Chuck thinks that the people who benefit from the crime should also be the ones policing it. What could go wrong?"

Nothing. From the dems view. And from Chucks view as well.

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Drago said...

BTW, you haven't really lived until you spend some time living as the only gringo with long hair driving a bug in the barrio.

It's....interesting.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
"...made more difficult from the get-go, with Trump making careless citations to studies that he hasn't read and probably wouldn't understand if he did." Lulz


Fabi did you see the ABC/David Muir interview? The part where Muir says to Trump that he talked to the Pew study authors the day before the interview, and they said that their study doesn't mean what Trump says? It gets sociopathic after that.


Matthew Sablan said...

"What, aren't those part of America?"

-- I view it just like all of those studies that went around after Trump won about flipping one county from one state to a neighboring state to make Clinton win. An interesting factoid that, ultimately, doesn't matter.

wildswan said...

Chuck said
"Robert Monroe from Shorewood who voted multiple time for Trump".

Robert Monroe was convicted of voting multiple times in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in Walker elections, not in the Trump election of 2016.

The last time there was an investigation of voter fraud was in 2016 by Jill Stein and it showed that half the precincts in Detroit had major irregularities. The number of votes cast did not match the certified vote totals for the different candidates. If the difference was more than three when the votes were being checked then the check can be and usually was stopped as there is supposed to be no difference at all. So it is actually unknown in most cases how great the discrepancy was. Anyhow, this example shows that there was major cheating in a Democrat run city in the last election.

And if there were cheating on this scale in a Republican city the Democrats would insist on an investigation. We all know that. As the saying goes: if The Dems didn't have a double standard, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

Drago said...

I see Chuck is still desperately scrambling to make all his pre-election prognostication failures turn out "right".

LOL

Oh yes, there is definitely some sociopathic behavior being exhibited all right...

DanTheMan said...

>>86 confirmed cases during that period

Wow. 1.5 million illegal aliens in California, and only 86 confirmed cases in the entire country.

That's some mighty fine police work.

DanTheMan said...

In other news, only 86 confirmed cases of tax cheating found in the USA last April...

DanTheMan said...

...and it only took 5 years to find 86. Raise your hand if you think there are less than 20 confirmed cases of vote fraud per year...

wildswan said...

Chuck said
"Robert Monroe from Shorewood who voted multiple time for Trump".

Robert Monroe was convicted of voting multiple times in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in Walker elections, not in the Trump election of 2016.

The last time there was an investigation of voter fraud was in 2016 by Jill Stein and it showed that half the precincts in Detroit had major irregularities. The number of votes cast did not match the certified vote totals for the different candidates. If the difference was more than three when the votes were being checked then the check can be and usually was stopped as there is supposed to be no difference at all. So it is actually unknown in most cases how great the discrepancy was. Anyhow, this example shows that there was major cheating in a Democrat run city in the last election.

And if there were cheating on this scale in a Republican city the Democrats would insist on an investigation. We all know that. As the saying goes: if The Dems didn't have a double standard, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

Fabi said...

"It gets sociopathic after that."

I can't have an intellectual debate with someone who is so emotionally tripped that they'd choose that descriptor.

Chuck said...

wildswan:

You are badly mistaken, in your retelling of the Detroit story. (And what was that bit about "Robert Monroe from Shorewood"? I didn't write that, did I?)

Anyway, in a previous Althouse thread, this is what I wrote about the recount in Detroit:

************
Chuck said...
damikesc said...
It's on, in Michigan. We have a mildly-competent good-soldier Republican Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson. She is distancing herself, if not denouncing, Trump's claim of vast "voter fraud."
Chuck, slightly more than 1/3 of Wayne County voting machines produced vote totals that exceeded the actual number of votes cast.
One third.
And we know WHO those votes went for. If MI did a full recount, they couldn't have recounted the Detroit area because of these significant "irregularities".

That's badly misleading. The Michigan recount found that in a considerable number of precincts, the total number of counts in the optical scanners exceeded the number of voters registered as having presented and applied for ballots on election day. The numbers were trivial, but the discrepancies became significant as a news story because those precincts could not be recounted under Michigan law and the original vote counts would stand instead.

There is flatly no reason to presume that there were extra or illegal "votes" as you suggested. There are many obvious and merely sloppy (as opposed to fraudulent) reasons that the two tallies would not match, most of them having to do with the setup and testing of the scanners, jammed ballots, etc. And by no serious account, was there a suspicion of any conspiracy to stuff ballot boxes with extra votes.

In Detroit, 158 of the 392 precincts with ballot discrepancies had just one extra ballot accounted for either in the poll book or in the ballot box, according to the Wayne County’s canvassing report.

For suburban Wayne County, 72 percent of the 218 precincts boxes with discrepancies in the number of ballots were off by one ballot.


The other ballot discrepancies in Detroit and Wayne County precincts ranged between two and five ballots, according to the report.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/

1/27/17, 11:15 AM
************

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck says many accurate, wise and insightful things, but wraps them in the rhetoric of fundamental neverTrumpdom to the point of provocation. While many here who are not particularly enthralled with DJT are willing to give him a chance, Chuck is going a different direction on that.
Well, sir, it is a free country, but your valuable insights would garner (heh!) more respectful attention without the provocation.
Unless provocation is your hobby (or your mission).

Bad Lieutenant said...


I mean if you are going to go to the trouble of constructing another strawman to make yourself look insightful might as well go the full nine yards.
1/27/17, 2:20 PM

Don't be so harsh on Chuck. He is merely emulating his bromantic hero, President Trump, by speaking loosely and expressively about things he hasn't dealt with personally, but only sees.

Chuck, I guess you have the best words. I want all incorrect or improper voting ended. Whatever categories you arrange them in, I want them all gone. Whether it's illegals in CA getting over with provisional driver's licenses, or slumdwellers voting foe cigarettes, i want it all gone.

Now go fix it please. You translate my plain English ask into lawyer talk. If I forgot anything, feel free to add it in, as long as you are polite.

I mean, I assume you want that too?

St. Louis said...

In St. Louis last summer, a courageous young Ferguson activist named Bruce Franks took on the black ward machine and ran for state rep. He won the most votes cast election day, but lost because the absentee ballots went for the incumbent by a Cuban-sized margin. He and his lawyer went to court and the judge ordered the ballots disclosed, which showed fraudulent absentee voting. The court then ordered a new election. This time the challenger won. Now the federal prosecutor is looking into it.

Our liberal big city newspaper (I repeat myself) has told us for years that there is no such thing as voter fraud. However in this case the paper's hand was forced, and they had to send some actual reporters to do some actual investigating. Big surprise, they found fraud: people whose names were on absentee ballots but said they had not voted.

I suspect that some actual investigating by some actual reporters would find the same thing almost anywhere.

AvoCat

Chuck said...

I want to take this apart further:

The last time there was an investigation of voter fraud was in 2016 by Jill Stein and it showed that half the precincts in Detroit had major irregularities.
That's wrong. It was a recount, not an investigation of "voter fraud."

The number of votes cast did not match the certified vote totals for the different candidates.
That's wrong too. There was no measure of "votes cast." The differential was between the counter(s) on the optical scanning machines, and the number of voters' names tallied in the registration book. There was no serious suspicion about any number of "votes cast."

If the difference was more than three when the votes were being checked then the check can be and usually was stopped as there is supposed to be no difference at all. So it is actually unknown in most cases how great the discrepancy was.
That is all wrong. They did know the numbers of the discrepancies. In the vast majority of the precincts with faulty numbers, the discrepancy was one (1). In a few, the discrepancy was two (2) to five (5). That's it.

Anyhow, this example shows that there was major cheating in a Democrat run city in the last election.
Well, no. First of all, no one -- including Michigan's Republican Secretary of State and the Republican Attorney General (both Trump supporters) -- thought it was a problem of "cheating." Nor was it "major cheating." And, the miscount problems occurred throughout the state, albeit in fewer numbers than in Detroit and Wayne County.

Bob said...

The amount of fraud is directly proportional to the decibel level of the denials of the msm. i.e., through the roof. 3 million is a low estimate.

Gusty Winds said...

Chuck said...

The last time there was an investigation of voter fraud was in 2016 by Jill Stein and it showed that half the precincts in Detroit had major irregularities.
That's wrong. It was a recount, not an investigation of "voter fraud."

Brilliant! Dispute the meaningless part of the sentence and substantiate the part you want to challenge by purposefully ignoring the voter fraud / irregularities found in Detroit. Unbelievable.

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck--Just to investigate the situation in Detroit further, according to the Detroit News on December 12, 52 out of 662 (7.9%) Detroit precincts reported machine counters showing 5 or more votes counted than voters voting. Why did you leave that out of your 3:32 post? Do you have later numbers?

Om said...

That Richman study was peer-reviewed and found to be sorely lacking.

http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys

Or the version for non-statisticians:

One of the problems with the first study was that the researchers only looked at one part of the equation: non-citizens who voted. There are other things happening in real life. The key thing is that some of those individuals who were classified as non-citizens may, in fact, be citizens. The reason for the misclassification doesn't really matter, it's just part of the whole "measurement error" problem.

The Harvard study I linked to reanalyzes the data after correcting for this.

Ultimately, this is a classic 2 x 2 grid:

Actual citizen / identified as citizen ("true positive")
Actual non-citizen / misidentified as citizen ("false positive")
Actual citizen / misidentified as non-citizen ("false negative")
Actual non-citizen / identified as non-citizen ("true negative")

Richman only applied the probabilities to the false positive (non-citizen who voted) without accounting for the others, most notably the false negative.

Drago said...

Gusty Winds: "Brilliant! Dispute the meaningless part of the sentence and substantiate the part you want to challenge by purposefully ignoring the voter fraud / irregularities found in Detroit. Unbelievable."

Well, it becomes quite believable very quickly if you simply alter your baseline assumptions as to intent.

Gk1 said...

Where do we go from here? I don't think even the most dismissive leftie doesn't think there isn't any voter fraud. So the fact we do not find 3 million illegal votes makes this a pointless exercise? Will the press mock Trump if we "only" find 250k illegals voting?

Seeing Red said...

Freder:

Physically, yes they are part of the USA.

Mentally, no, they are not.

Seeing Red said...

Follow the EITC checks.

No more P.O. Boxes.

jdniner said...

All science quotes need the certification."Religiously uses the Scientific Method in All Official Capacities." Other wise its all garbage not worth reading.

Amadeus 48 said...

A son of a friend of mine worked on the Hillary campaign in Pennsylvania. The son told his father that he recommended against a recount effort in PA because it would have been useless and could have been embarrassing. Apparently several thousand votes just "appeared" in Philadelphia that the campaign could not account for. They doubt the voters were real.

Christy said...

Trump would not have won without everyone who wanted to drain the swamp. That swamp includes politicians of both parties, politicians kept in place by the existing voter protocols. I'm all for anything that shines light into the issue.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Seeing Red and other NYC-bashers,

Please keep in mind that D registrations here outnumber R by about 5:2 historically. Tammany etc.

Nonetheless there are millions of rock-ribbed conservatives trapped here with them.

Kindly aim closer.

Bubba said...

Richman’s calculation was based on the fact that five of 23,800 participants in the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study said they had voted but were not citizens. The CCES’s own researchers noted that a number that small might have been produced by simple human error. Checked the wrong box. To then extrapolate that possible simple error in filling out the form to a sample size of the entire election is a stretch.

Harold said...

I'm not going to try and find the link, but a few days ago when the head of the election commission in one state was asked about 8 or so dead people who died before absentee ballots were sent out, but somehow managed to vote were obvious mistakes, but not illegal voting.

You see, the average person like me hears that and thinks- That's evidence of a crime. You have to have a special kind of legal training to hear that and say, "Well, it really isn't a crime if dead people vote."

But that's why there are so few prosecutions. It's not that illegal voting doesn't occur. It's that the people who could prosecute it aren't looking and don't care. Took the newspaper less then a day to find that dead people voted. And, apparently, it just doesn't matter.

This is why Republicans have to amass enough votes so their winning margin is outside the margin of fraud. In the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election, Republican Dino Rossi won twice- the initial count and the first recount. Second recount Democrat Christine Gregoire won- so they stopped counting. Yeah, ballots misplaced and not counted mysteriously showed up. All for the Democrat. Mysteriously. And almost all the corrected ballots were corrected to indicate a Democrat vote.

But yeah, voter fraud has never decided an election.

Should we talk about Al Franken's first election now?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Harold,

It's not that illegal voting doesn't occur. It's that the people who could prosecute it aren't looking and don't care.

That's it exactly. Move along, move along, nothing to see here.

John said...

I don't remember who said something about a national ID card to vote. I am against a national ID card for a number of reasons. I would not be against a state voter ID card. Perhaps standardized by federal guidelines like driver's licenses.

One thing I think should be done is to make it ONLY for voting. We have a state voter ID card in PR. No card, no vote. Not hard to get and it lasts until you move or they change the card. I've had 3 in 45 years here. It does require proof of citizenship and residence. Every town has an office that issues them. Some only open a couple days a month for most of the 4 year election cycle.

I cannot use my voter ID card for any other purpose. I tried to use it once at a bank to change a check and they told me that if they accepted it, both of us would be breaking the law. No govt agency has access to it other than the election commission.

It is a pretty secure card, hologram, encrypted 2D barcodes and more so hard to counterfeit. Even if I could get a counterfeit card, it would be hard to vote more than once. Voting here requires a personal appearance at the polls on election day (with a few exceptions), polls are open for a limited time and we dip our fingers in a UV ink.

In PR, in the 46 years I've been here, I've not heard any allegations of election fraud. We don't even have any of the standard jokes about it. Vote early and often and so on. They would not make sense here since you can't.

Only something like 37% of the American populace trusts that the elections are fair and free from fraud. Doesn't matter if that skepticism is based on reality or not, it is the belief.

I think we need to have a major, 50 state federal investigation to either 1) Find the fraud and figure out how to stop it or 2) Show Americans that fears of fraud are misplaced.

John Henry

John said...

Thank you Chuck for the cite on the citizenship requirement. I still don't understand how the Constitution can give the states the power to select electors in any way they want (subject to a few constitutional restrictions) yet statutory law can interfere with that right.

Probably off topic here but an interesting rathole for me to burrow into.

John Henry

Chuck said...

Exactly what sort of fraud do all of you election law experts think happened in Detroit?

Please be specific, and tell me how you came to your conclusions/allegations.

holdfast said...

When I lived in NJ, it was very clear that folks were trying to get me to vote (I was on a visa and then a Green Card). It would have been incredibly easy to do so - would just have required a single lie. It was VERY clear that the ethnic communities in our town were voting as blocks, and many were not citizens (though most were legal - Philippina nurses on visas, etc.)

Bad Lieutenant said...

So I take it as an election lawyer in Michigan, Chuck, you don't do much?

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck-- any thoughts on the 52 precincts in Detroit where the counters showed 5 or more votes counted than voters, which you ignored or were unaware of in your 3:32 post? I don't know what they do in Detroit, but in Chicago ballots appear and are voted by people who are dead, people who have moved, people who find they have already cast an absentee ballot without their knowledge, and sometimes, precinct workers just run a premarked ballot through the counter several times. Also, noncitizens can get registered to vote by checking a box the they are a US citizen. They wouldn't lie would they?
One might ask why would a noncitizen vote? It could be for the $20 bucks they get from the Dem party when they turn in their voting stub.
That's how the Dems do it in Chicago, Chuck. How do they do it in Detroit?

Dad29 said...

Ama.48, you got there before I did. THANKS!!

This is NOT just about 'illegals,' or even resident aliens. This is about entire cemeteries voting twice on the day before Election Day, and the other Democrat Machine tricks of the trade.

Goes back to the Kennedy/Nixon of '60--or even further.

Stephen said...

1. The ODU report has not been peer reviewed and The Washington Times is not famous either for its lack of bias or its methodological expertise. So let's see how this report fares under disinterested examination.

2. There is an interesting passage in the WT article that Ms. Althouse does not quote.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

So Trump's statement on these issues, which Ms. Althouse has said should not be labeled as "false" is on the account of the expert with the most favorable view of the matter, "not at all" plausible

Amadeus 48 said...

The correct response to Trump's statement that millions of illegal votes were cast across the nation is that no one knows and we should find out. Hence, the investigation ordered is the proper next step. The press (Mara Liasson at NPR) requested it. Millions of Americans will have their questions answered. I for one am eager to find out what happens in California, New York, and Illinois that makes them so different from the rest of the country on election day (although I think I know), but I am even more interested to find out what happens in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. This should be very informative.

Matt said...

Conspiracies are easy to believe when they lend themselves to a preferred bias. Note the amazing coincidence that is being floated around; Trump lost by around 2.8 million votes. The number of illegal votes is as high as 2.8 million. LOL. Good luck with that.

Amadeus 48 said...

Matt--Would you be concerned if there were 800,000 illegal votes cast in November. If not, why not?
It is interesting. All my Dem friends are interested only in denouncing Trump's assertions, but they aren't interested at all in investigating them. All my Republican friends think there were a lot of illegal votes cast in November and are interested in finding out what happened. Why could that be?
Why not settle the question?

Jon Ericson said...

Call it "The Liasson Investigation".
Catchy.
Hollywoody.

Amadeus 48 said...

John Ericsson--Your new pictograph...is...making me..retch!
That David Brock Death Ray is strong stuff. Be careful where you point that thing.

Matt said...

Amadeus 48

Yes, I would be concerned if there were 800,000 illegal votes cast. Yes I would be interested in investigating them. However elections are run by counties not Federally and each state has different laws too so it will be difficult to apply one standard. AND the problem with some standards is that they end up suppressing the vote in some neighborhoods. For instance, the longer the polls are open the more it benefits Democrats. Therefore, Republicans like to shorten voting periods. Then there is the voter ID issue. I sort of agree with the concept but I see it's problem too - especially with elderly and some communities who just don't carry ID. Again, it suppresses the vote. I'm not interested in that.

My big issue with the illegal voter claim is that it is yet another way for Republicans to attempt to pretend that Obama's two wins were not legitimate. In this case, it is to claim that Clinton's popular vote win was not legit. I do not intend to claim that Trump was illegitimate. He won fair and square. I accept that. Although don't you find it interesting in the news today that Trump proposed a popular vote solution but McConnell said no.

hombre said...

Chuck: "And as usual, I was ridiculed on both counts."

You are ridiculed because, like the mediaswine and the moonbats, you never stop harping about Trump. It is difficult to understand why you persist obsessively with self-validated blather after your party's candidate has been elected. Trump is gaslighting you right along with the lefty wackos.

Jon Ericson said...

Sorry Bro ;)

hombre said...

College professors have demonstrated themselves, generally, to be as biased leftward as journalists. Richman study is an unfortunate departure from the "there is no voter fraud" mantra of the mediaswine and the DNC by a "friendly." That may be why it needed an accusation against Trump as an accompaniment. OTOH, Waldman's piece is obviously partisan crap.

Which is more misleading, the outright denial of the existence of voter fraud by the lefties or the overestimation, if it is an overestimation, by Trump? Which is the greater threat to the Republic?

Chuck said...

Hey I am serious about wanting all of you Trumpkin conspiracy theorists to explain to me very carefully the nature of any allegations of massive vote fraud that you claim in Detroit. When our Republican AG and Republican Secretary of State aren't seeing it.

Amadeus 48 said...
Chuck-- any thoughts on the 52 precincts in Detroit where the counters showed 5 or more votes counted than voters, which you ignored or were unaware of in your 3:32 post?


Again, NO! No no no no no. There were not "more votes counted than voters." How many god damned times do I have to say that in the plainest English. It wasn't "more votes counted." It was a discrepancy between the number on the optical-scanner's counter, and the number of voters presenting in that precinct. And there are about a dozen non-suspicious reasons for that to have occurred. It should not occur. It is sloppiness if it does occur. It is NOT anything like prima facie evidence of vote fraud. Remember, this problem didn't just happen in Detroit, or in all-Democrat precincts. It mostly happened there, but that is presumably because they are just sloppy. Because if it was a grand conspiracy, they did it in some odd rural Trump/Aryan Nations precincts too. And remember; this was positively the worst and most ill-concealed conspiracy in history since the evidence to expose it was detectable within minutes of unsealing the scanners and the vote books and comparing numbers with a naked eye.

I don't know what they do in Detroit, but in Chicago ballots appear and are voted by people who are dead, people who have moved, people who find they have already cast an absentee ballot without their knowledge, and sometimes, precinct workers just run a premarked ballot through the counter several times. Also, noncitizens can get registered to vote by checking a box the they are a US citizen. They wouldn't lie would they?

I don't know; if you are so well-versed on Chicago vote rigging, I'd suggest that you call Laura Jacksack in Chicago who is an RNLA member and an election lawyer. And do an affidavit for her, of your observations in however-many Chicago precincts in which you have been a credentialed observer. The way I have, in Detroit.

One might ask why would a noncitizen vote? It could be for the $20 bucks they get from the Dem party when they turn in their voting stub.
That's how the Dems do it in Chicago, Chuck. How do they do it in Detroit?


If you are trying to convince me of the wisdom of Republican-sponsored election law reforms, you're a bit late since I've been interested in these issues for about 20 years. But we are interested in real issues, and not phony internet legends.

hombre said...

Matt: "My big issue with the illegal voter claim is that it is yet another way for Republicans to attempt to pretend that Obama's two wins were not legitimate. In this case, it is to claim that Clinton's popular vote win was not legit."

Why would either of these aims be important? Obama is electoral history and Hillary's popular vote changes nothing. It is far more likely that Republicans are concerned that future elections might be tainted by illegal voting for Democrats while Democrats are worried that they might not be.

Amadeus 48 said...

Matt--I consider all your points reasonable. One thing that bemuses me is that both parties--ever since Nixon resigned-- keep trying to undo the last election rather than looking forward to winning the next election. The Dems tried to undo Reagan with Iran-Contra. We all know what happened with Clinton and Newt. G W Bush was impossible for the Dems to swallow, even after he won a solid re-election in 2004 (even now, John Kerry will drone on about Ohio--a state he lost by 122,000 votes). Obama wasn't qualified, even though birth announcements appeared in the Honolulu papers when he was born.
The Dems are in shock because they didn't anticipating losing this election. But they are ignoring what happened to them down-ballot over the past six years.
Glad to hear that you accept Trump as the winner--many of my friends don't. But there is a real problem with the question of illegal voting in this country--probably I am more aware of it because I live in Chicago. The numbers in California smell to high heaven. People on the GOP side are still steamed about Franken's election, not to mention Dino Rossi's loss of the Washington's Governor's race several years ago after he won election night and the first recount--votes kept turning up until the Dem won the second recount. The whole motor-voter adventure has fraudulent registration as a feature not a bug.
The Labour Party in Britain got caught red-handed saying that they intended to increase immigration to change the electorate in their favor. The GOP believes that lax immigration enforcement combined with motor-voter is doing the same thing for the Dems.
It would be good to know what happened in the election we just had. Nobody knows what happened regarding illegal voters.
I welcome a serious investigation (while recognizing that this may well be as politicized as everything else).

Harold said...

Matt said...
...In this case, it is to claim that Clinton's popular vote win was not legit...


I keep seeing people like you, well, all Democrats and liberals, keep referring to her popular vote win. There is no popular vote win in the race for president, only an electoral vote win.

Think of it like football. Scoring 5 times with field goals loses to scoring 3 times with TDs. The only thing that matters is- Who won by the existing rules? Talking about any other kind of win is nonsense. Because it's NOT A WIN! You can keep whining about it, but it doesn't change the facts. She was a lousy candidate who ran a losing campaign.

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck--Thanks for your response.
I am actually a long-time friend of Richard Porter, who is the RNC member from Illinois.
I think you are a Dem plant, not a lifelong Republican as you claim. If you are a lifelong Republican, you need to re-think how you are playing the game. To quote a great American, you act like a loser.
Good luck to you in building the Michigan GOP.

Francisco D said...

Chuck,

I suggest you talk to almost anyone who grew up in Chicago to learn how vote fraud works. Your deliberate ignorance is annoying and leads me to believe that you are lying through your teeth.

Alternatively, you may be on intimate terms with David Brock, the one-time conservative.

Birkel said...

Chuck:
Massive is an interesting word. It has no numeric definition.

In the futute, when Mobying, please use words that have precise definitions. It will make it easier to spot the lies, for the uninitiated.

Thanks in advance.

Chuck said...

Amadeus 48 said...
Chuck--Thanks for your response.
I am actually a long-time friend of Richard Porter, who is the RNC member from Illinois.
I think you are a Dem plant, not a lifelong Republican as you claim. If you are a lifelong Republican, you need to re-think how you are playing the game. To quote a great American, you act like a loser.
Good luck to you in building the Michigan GOP.

I don't understand; if you've got good evidence of voter fraud in Illinois, why don't you just report it and pursue it?

Anyway, I honestly don't care to get sidetracked on Chicago. I was focused on Detroit, and the facts on the ground there. It is a moderately interesting/amusing story; it does nothing to help with "vote fraud" claims, and it doesn't much help with Republican electoral reforms.

And about Michigan; we've done a good job in preserving traditional election integrity. We have no early voting of any kind; so we don't need to go to court over any 'reductions' in early voting. We have excused-only absentee voting. And we have a voter id requirement that we are in the process of making more strict. (Passed the House last December but not taken up by the Senate in their lame duck session.) So Michigan's doing fine, thank you very little.

Gahrie said...

If the votes in LA County, taken together with the four New York counties surrounding Manhattan were not counted, Trump won the popular election.

What, aren't those part of America?


No..they're part of America...just a very weird, non-representative part.

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck--
Michigan Congressional delegation
GOP-9 Dems-5
Michigan House
GOP-63 Dems-47
Michigan Senate
GOP-27 Dems-11
Gov-GOP
Secretary of State --GOP
Attorney General--GOP
Michigan Supreme Court
GOP--5 Dems--2
Wow. You have done a great job. The GOP owns the store thanks to guys like you. You can be really proud that the Michigan GOP is so dominant. Now you just need to defeat that Debbie Stabenow next time and you'll finally get a US Senate seat, too. Congratulations, Chuck. You must be very proud of everything the GOP has accomplished in Michigan.

EsoxLucius said...

Everyone in Washington calls the Times 'the Moonie Paper'. It was founded by Sun Myung Moon, the messiah father of the Unification church and inmate 040285 of the Danbury Prison for tax evasion.

Chuck said...

Amadeus 48 said...
...
Wow. You have done a great job. The GOP owns the store thanks to guys like you. You can be really proud that the Michigan GOP is so dominant. Now you just need to defeat that Debbie Stabenow next time and you'll finally get a US Senate seat, too. Congratulations, Chuck. You must be very proud of everything the GOP has accomplished in Michigan.


I wonder if Stabenow will run again. She won in her last race because it was an Obama year (2012), and because our candidate, Terri Lynn Land (a former Secretary of State who had never lost a statewide election) just didn't run a good campaign. (Arguably, she didn't even run a mediocre campaign.) I was really disappointed in that one. Because Stabenow's first Senate election was such a fluke; she beat Spencer Abraham in what I think was the tightest Senate election in our history. Spence was doing a great job in the Senate with a great staff. (Ann Coulter was one of Spence's staffers.)

Dems might have some different ideas about somebody younger and more energetic to try to retain that seat. We Republicans will have some very capable candidates for that seat.

Some years ago, Washington Monthly magazine did a mock-election poll of Capitol Hill staffers. (Things like hottest Congressman and Congresswoman, Smartest Senator, Most effective, etc.) In the category of "Most Clueless," the winner was Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning, who was suffering from senile dementia and was about to resign. The runner-up was Debbie Stabenow.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

Congress has said by statute that only citizens can vote. Is there a constitutional issue with trying to enforce that, i.e. states are responsible for certifying voters? The re-districting decisions have had federal courts trying to enforce "one person, one vote," but the principle of fairness here may be based more on "residents" (as in allocating seats in the House of Representatives) rather than voters.

I know Americans are showing no interest in any constitutional amendment (I doubt the progressives are going to try to change the Electoral College), but a case may be made for saying it is up to Congress to determine the qualifications to vote in elections for President, Senate, and House. This would confirm that Congress can say: must be a citizen.

I also think a case could be made for an amendment to Article II, Section I: a state legislature may direct the electors for that state as to which candidate(s) to vote for. This would confirm what has come to be standard practice. The Constitution implies that electors are perfectly free to vote their consciences, but as we have just seen, the Secretary of State within a state is not likely to accept that.

Bad Lieutenant said...

And do an affidavit for her, of your observations in however-many Chicago precincts in which you have been a credentialed observer. The way I have, in Detroit.


If you haven't found anything in 20 years, Chuck, you must not be very good at whatever it is you say you do. How about this: go away, and don't come back till you find something.

Hyphenated American said...

Two points...

1. DOJ should kindly ask all states to provide the list of all people who voted in the 2016 presidential elections, including social security numbers, addresses and date of birth. Any state that fails to produce such a list or the list is incomplete, will be declared a "voting fraud" special zone, agreed?

2. Democrats stopped talking about the need to investigate the 2016 elections for hacking... apparently they don't like the idea of investigation any more. Trump successfully silenced liberals.

n.n said...

Hyphenated American:

Resolving political corruption, securing the information infrastructure... and with emigration reform, economic revitalization, and closure of abortion chambers, it will be difficult for any party to gerrymander the demographics or disenfranchise the People and our Posterity.