Voter Fraud Commission

[Underhill]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gggMAE&usg=AFQjCNHkMx1JhZDnrEDcxErdoV15HCCSLg

So, assuming the data is correct, so far in my reading I see that about 15% of registered non citizens reported they were voting. And less than 1% of the respondents were registered non citizens.

The author points out that this number adds up to a substantial number of 620,000-800,000 illegals registered to vote, which sounds like a lot. But again, assuming his data is all spot on (and I will get to that in a sec) that is assuming every one of them votes, which is extraordinarily unlikely. At current voting turnout levels the real number is likely to be more in line with 150,000 nationwide.

Last election Clinton received almost 3 million votes more than Trump nationwide and still lost.

About the data...

The Data was pulled from an earlier "Cooperative Congressional Election Study". Of which even the authors are skeptical. Why? I will let them answer.

This from one of the authors of the original study.

"How do we know that some people give an inaccurate response to this question? Well, we actually took 19,000 respondents from one of the surveys that Richman used (the 2010 study) and we interviewed them again in 2012. A total of 121 of the 19,000 respondents (.64 percent) identified themselves as immigrant non-citizens when they first answered the survey in 2010. However, when asked the question again in 2012, 36 of the 121 selected a different response, indicating that they were citizens. Even more telling was this: 20 respondents identified themselves as citizens in 2010 but then in 2012 changed their answers to indicate that they were non-citizens. It is highly unrealistic to go from being a citizen in 2010 to a non-citizen in 2012, which provides even stronger evidence that some people were providing incorrect responses to this question for idiosyncratic reasons."

So the data could be off by as much as 50%, perhaps more. Meaning that the real number of illegals is minuscule, as I pointed out.

That is the problem when you are using data from the fringes. In other words 120 out of 19,000 is a tiny percentage. So small that just errors could account almost entirely for a number that small.

 

[Mister Emu]

At current voting turnout levels the real number is likely to be more in line with 150,000 nationwide.

The problem is that we don't know, but the possibility exists for over 2 million votes to be illegally cast every election.

Last election Clinton received almost 3 million votes more than Trump nationwide and still lost.

The integrity of our elections goes well beyond whether Trump won the popular vote; it is highly unlikely that he did. In terms of meaningful impact, Al Franken's MN Senate seat was almost certainly stolen from the legitimate voters by non-citizens. That is every bit as disenfranchising as not allowing someone to vote.

So the data could be off by as much as 50%, perhaps more. Meaning that the real number of illegals is minuscule, as I pointed out.

Saying it could be doesn't equate to "meaning I'm definitely right". Even if it were 50% off, that leaves the possibility of over a million votes.

I never said that there were definitely millions of illegal voters, just that not all of the data indicates there are none, and some of it shows meaningful numbers of illegal voting. That is reason enough to have a nationwide thorough investigation.

 

[Underhill]

The problem is that we don't know, but the possibility exists for over 2 million votes to be illegally cast every election.

Potential? Maybe, although it is extremely unlikely, and even less likely to impact an election.

The integrity of our elections goes well beyond whether Trump won the popular vote; it is highly unlikely that he did. In terms of meaningful impact, Al Franken's MN Senate seat was almost certainly stolen from the legitimate voters by non-citizens. That is every bit as disenfranchising as not allowing someone to vote.

I find no evidence of that either.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/10/18/reality-check-is-the-election-rigged/

The group who made the claim has been found to have used faulty data. Many of the people they claimed were felons were not. In fact there is only evidence of 29 felons voting in the elections.

I do find a bunch of republican sources making the claim though.

Saying it could be doesn't equate to "meaning I'm definitely right". Even if it were 50% off, that leaves the possibility of over a million votes.

I never said that there were definitely millions of illegal voters, just that not all of the data indicates there are none, and some of it shows meaningful numbers of illegal voting. That is reason enough to have a nationwide thorough investigation.

If it were a thorough investigation I would be all for it. This is not that. This is a group of people with an agenda and goals.

As for who is right. First, no, 50% off would mean there was the possibility of 400,000 votes. But this is assuming 100% of illegals who are registered voted. That would never happen. Second, the author of the study never claimed millions of illegals were voting.

As I pointed out there have been dozens of studies done on the subject and this is the one everyone points to on the right and this, even though both the author and the authors of the original study, where the numbers came from, disagree with their conclusions.

 

[Mister Emu]

I find no evidence of that either.

It was in the paper, it would take less than .7% participation (while the data indicate closer to 6% voter participation).

If it were a thorough investigation I would be all for it. This is not that. This is a group of people with an agenda and goals.

Everyone has agendas and goals, and it seems that when a necessary event is taking place, the best way to mitigate agendas and goals would be to participate instead of throwing a fit that it is happening at all.

As for who is right. First, no, 50% off would mean there was the possibility of 400,000 votes.

Apparently, you need to read a little more:
"the number of non-citizen voters (including both uncertainty based on normally distributed sampling error, and the various combinations of verified and reported voting) could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum."

I'll leave you to determine what 50% of 2.8 million is.

 

[Underhill]

It was in the paper, it would take less than .7% participation (while the data indicate closer to 6% voter participation).

Everyone has agendas and goals, and it seems that when a necessary event is taking place, the best way to mitigate agendas and goals would be to participate instead of throwing a fit that it is happening at all.

Apparently, you need to read a little more:
"the number of non-citizen voters (including both uncertainty based on normally distributed sampling error, and the various combinations of verified and reported voting) could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum."

I'll leave you to determine what 50% of 2.8 million is.

Right, because if you have plus or minus 2% in a study that finds .05% of voters could be fraudulent, then your 150,000 goes up pretty dramatically.

It's simple. You found one study that used bad data. Another quote from Brian Schaffner...

"As a member of the team that produces the datasets upon which that study was based and as the co-author of an article published in the same journal that provides a clear “take down” of the study in question, I can say unequivocally that this research is not only wrong, it is irresponsible social science and should never have been published in the first place. There is no evidence that non-citizens have voted in recent U.S. elections.
Then republicans took the highest number that even the author said is erronious."

Then politicians took that study and drew false conclusions from it which even the author of the study had problems with.

"Dear Washington Times,

As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

Best Regards,

Jesse Richman"

So I am sorry, but that is not evidence of anything. Especially when you take into account that every other study out there says exactly the opposite.

 

[Mister Emu]

So I am sorry, but that is not evidence of anything.

So your claim has changed from "all the studies say the same thing" to "a study that says something else doesn't matter". Thanks.

 

[Underhill]

So your claim has changed from "all the studies say the same thing" to "a study that says something else doesn't matter". Thanks.

You are right.

I should have said all credible studies say the same thing. Then I would have been spot on.

 

[Valjean]

The Republicans are always doing studies, and, unless manipulated like the one cited by our ratite friend, they consistently fail to uncover any significant problem.

I think, like Mr Emu, many honestly believe the country is being undermined by immigrants, but this is a moral panic. Immigrants and 'terrorists' are the bogeymen du jour.

The real threat to our voting system is voter suppression:
The massive election-rigging scandal the media ignored
The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters
This is just one of several methods of voter suppression used by the Republicans and the Koch's Libertarians.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election"

Published December 1, 2016

Three weeks ago, the votes of more than 135 million Americans were counted, and Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 presidential election. It was a surprising result, given that polling in the run-up to the election suggested that Hillary Clinton's support in the Midwest would ensure that she could hit 270 electoral votes. That support didn't exist when it came time to vote, and that was that.

We can anticipate one response in advance: The fraud isn't being detected! It's certainly possible that we're missing cases (as above) and it's certainly possible that some cases as yet have gone unnoticed. That would have had to have happened despite the checks that are already in place and which caught the people implicated above, mind you. And it would have had to have happened during an election cycle where more attention was paid to voter security than any other in recent history. Catching Clinton voters casting fraudulent ballots would be a huge coup, particularly now! (After all, Trump himself said that it was Democrats who commit fraud, not Republicans.) But that doesn't seem to be happening.

There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

 

[tytlyf]

"There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election"

Published December 1, 2016





There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

Makes sense, but low information voters will think millions of people are voting illegally because RW media tells them. They don't fact check, they take the performance as fact.
The GOP is very dangerous, they're the ones destroying the middle class because they don't want competition. You won't see democrats doing this.

 

[Mister Emu]

unless manipulated like the one cited by our ratite friend

That's the right attitude: "studies that disagree with me are manipulated."

I think, like Mr Emu, many honestly believe the country is being undermined by immigrants

I think you shouldn't talk out your backside about what other people believe. I've never once said our country is being undermined by immigrants or that there are definitely large numbers of illegal voters. I said there are data points that suggest the possibility, and given the grave nature of the charge such data points must have a thorough investigation of the sort that can only be properly done via the federal government.

"There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election"

Published December 1, 2016

There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

"This excludes examples of voter registration fraud."
This is the problem with discussing this issue, people conflate the low number of voters who go twice or vote as someone they are not with people who are improperly registered. VA has kicked ~5,500 people off their rolls for self-reported non-citizenship.

I like this article because it shows that there is an issue and it is cautionary because it features prominently someone who should be voting and was removed from the voter registry.
Illegals in Virginia registered, voted in elections

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That's the right attitude: "studies that disagree with me are manipulated."


I think you shouldn't talk out your backside about what other people believe. I've never once said our country is being undermined by immigrants or that there are definitely large numbers of illegal voters. I said there are data points that suggest the possibility, and given the grave nature of the charge such data points must have a thorough investigation of the sort that can only be properly done via the federal government.


"This excludes examples of voter registration fraud."
This is the problem with discussing this issue, people conflate the low number of voters who go twice or vote as someone they are not with people who are improperly registered. VA has kicked ~5,500 people off their rolls for self-reported non-citizenship.

I like this article because it shows that there is an issue and it is cautionary because it features prominently someone who should be voting and was removed from the voter registry.
Illegals in Virginia registered, voted in elections

You really need a better source, that place is just crap and it keeps citing itself as its own reference. I can't find the state issued document it is talking about from the "news" article itself. Also if they caught improper registration, that means voter "fraud" was prevented. That means it did not happen and the system is working.