Could non-citizens decide the November election?

William Haskins · Oct 28, 2014

like webbed fingers?

Roxxsmom · Oct 28, 2014

Wilde_at_heart said:
Unfortunately local elections - where you actually can make a difference - tend to have the lowest voter turn out of all. The Toronto mayoral vote turnout was 60% and that's unusually high.

That's unusually high for a presidential election year down here

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 28, 2014

William Haskins said:
it was more of a test of a sense of humor.

post 6, see also.

Xelebes said:
Are we counting the standard deviations?

William Haskins said:
like webbed fingers?

Or loss of sense of humor around election time. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I remember a long pointless thread about this kind of thing a couple of years ago that got unnecessarily heated (looks in mirror to practice innocent face, fails spectacularly).

It's an annoying topic for a number of reasons. In practical terms, it's a statistical problem that has clearly been solved. If the total number of potential fraudulent votes is an order of magnitude lower than the trigger for a recount, the laws are fine.

But, it's also the kind of problem that many people refuse to treat as statistical. There is a tendency toward inflated righteousness at the idea of unworthy people being permitted into the sacred precincts of the ballot box.

Increase pomposity to 5 atmospheres
The holy institution of voting having never been violated by home grown corruption in the entire history of these glorious United States.
Exhale

But on a serious note, this has also been used (and is being used) as a mechanism to disenfranchise. I'm not going to pull up the links again. We already went through that last time. So, as with other political subjects, it is often the case that the underlying reason for the high dudgeon is not the reason expressed.

I cannot say whether that is the case in North Carolina, but I maintain a skeletal cynicism.

robeiae · Oct 28, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
In practical terms, it's a statistical problem that has clearly been solved. If the total number of potential fraudulent votes is an order of magnitude lower than the trigger for a recount, the laws are fine.

The potential number is not lower, if all of the avenues are added up. The real problem here is that no one really wants to know anything in this regard. And that's not to say there definitely is enough voter fraud going on to require attention. There may not be, but it remains an unknown.

And the laws are only "fine" from a particular point of view. That point of view isn't the correct one just because it serves to placate the minds of some, mostly because they want justification for other beliefs. Like this:

So, as with other political subjects, it is often the case that the underlying reason for the high dudgeon is not the reason expressed.

I cannot say whether that is the case in North Carolina, but I maintain a skeletal cynicism.

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 28, 2014

robeiae said:
The potential number is not lower, if all of the avenues are added up. The real problem here is that no one really wants to know anything in this regard. And that's not to say there definitely is enough voter fraud going on to require attention. There may not be, but it remains an unknown.

And the laws are only "fine" from a particular point of view. That point of view isn't the correct one just because it serves to placate the minds of some, mostly because they want justification for other beliefs. Like this:

North Carolina stated they had a space of 10,000 questionable voters. Their investigations led them to conclude that of those some 1425 were likely illegal. So, what avenues were not covered?

I do not see the statement that the law already has a review mechanism ( recount) robust enough to handle 10 times the problem identified is merely a method of justification.

CassandraW · Oct 28, 2014

*twirls mustache*

Wasn't the Bush/Gore election decided by a difference of 500 or so votes in Florida?

raburrell · Oct 28, 2014

All elderly Jewish Pat Robertson voters

(bonus answer: no, the Supreme Court did.)

CassandraW · Oct 28, 2014

raburrell said:
All elderly Jewish Pat Robertson voters

They still get together on Sundays to hang chads and talk about old times.

raburrell said:
(bonus answer: no, the Supreme Court did.)

Well, yeah. But the Supreme Court most likely wouldn't have been involved if the vote weren't so close, no?

Just saying -- an election can hinge on a surprisingly small number of votes.

(Though I don't think that's an excuse for putting unreasonable barriers in the way of legitimate voters.)

Haggis · Oct 28, 2014

raburrell said:
All elderly Jewish Pat Robertson voters
(bonus answer: no, the Supreme Court did.)

I had no idea Pat Robertson was an elderly Jew.

T Robinson · Oct 28, 2014

Amazing what you can learn on the Internet, isn't it?

raburrell · Oct 28, 2014

CassandraW said:
Well, yeah. But the Supreme Court most likely wouldn't have been involved if the vote weren't so close, no?

I wish they hadn't (so does O'Connor, apparently).

Just saying -- an election can hinge on a surprisingly small number of votes.

Absolutely - at some point, it's really not about who won, it's about the statistical margin of error. Joking aside, I'd much rather see a recount in those cases. Or hell, a coin toss. Because it ceases to be about the will of the people at that point and becomes all about who's counting the votes.

(Though I don't think that's an excuse for putting unreasonable barriers in the way of legitimate voters.)

Agreed - closer to topic, I'd wager the aforementioned margin of error is as much a factor as the political unicorn of non-citizen votes.

robeiae · Oct 28, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
North Carolina stated they had a space of 10,000 questionable voters. Their investigations led them to conclude that of those some 1425 were likely illegal. So, what avenues were not covered?

You stated "If the total number of potential fraudulent votes is an order of magnitude lower than the trigger for a recount, the laws are fine."

10,000 is not the number of potential fraudulent votes, with respect to non-citizens possibly voting. And that's only one way fraudulent votes can be cast. There are others.

Also, you confined your analysis to state-wide numbers. But local/district races are on those ballots, too. The numbers there are much smaller. Even if the 10,000 questionable ballots are somewhat evenly dispersed in all districts (unlikely), the numbers could look very different in specific districts.

Doesn't mean there are lots of fraudulent votes being cast. But again, we can't say with any real certainty, one way or the other, because despite recent hoopla on the issue it's never really been a priority.

And look, that's fine imo. It's unlikely elections are being decided by voter fraud, in any form. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be. And that doesn't mean obvious ways of committing voter fraud shouldn't be addressed, should just be ignored.

RichardGarfinkle · Oct 28, 2014

robeiae said:
You stated "If the total number of potential fraudulent votes is an order of magnitude lower than the trigger for a recount, the laws are fine."

10,000 is not the number of potential fraudulent votes, with respect to non-citizens possibly voting. And that's only one way fraudulent votes can be cast. There are others.

Also, you confined your analysis to state-wide numbers. But local/district races are on those ballots, too. The numbers there are much smaller. Even if the 10,000 questionable ballots are somewhat evenly dispersed in all districts (unlikely), the numbers could look very different in specific districts.

Doesn't mean there are lots of fraudulent votes being cast. But again, we can't say with any real certainty, one way or the other, because despite recent hoopla on the issue it's never really been a priority.

And look, that's fine imo. It's unlikely elections are being decided by voter fraud, in any form. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be. And that doesn't mean obvious ways of committing voter fraud shouldn't be addressed, should just be ignored.

It's not 10,000 questionable ballots. Look at the link William posted. It was 10,000 possibly questionable registered voters which were winnowed down to 1425 probably illegal registered voters. That's for the entire state of NC which has more than 9,000,000 citizens and more than 6,000,000 registered voters.

So even if everyone of those 1425 was actually illegal, and note they said probably, not definitely, they would not have a statistically significant affect on any statewide office. And to have an affect on a local office they would have to be concentrated in a very small area.

robeiae · Oct 28, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
It's not 10,000 questionable ballots. Look at the link William posted. It was 10,000 possibly questionable registered voters which were winnowed down to 1425 probably illegal registered voters. That's for the entire state of NC which has more than 9,000,000 citizens and more than 6,000,000 registered voters.

I understand exactly what it says. Look at your own words. The potential number of fraudulent voters--even limited to just the case of non-citizens casting ballots--is not equivalent to the ones identified in this one state audit.

I get your point of view here, with regard to the fear that addressing potential voter fraud can amount to an attempt at disenfranchisement. But imo, trying to cast as automatically insignificant--if not non-existent--all possible voter fraud is wrong-headed. Like any other system, voting mechanisms can be improved. Obvious problems that allow fraud can be corrected.

And I agree with Cass in this regard: fixing such things necessitates not creating barriers for citizens to vote. If that is what is happening, the fix is probably worse than the problem, imo.

benbradley · Oct 28, 2014

Undocumented voters, fat fingers and hanging chads, oh my!

ShaunHorton · Oct 28, 2014

To be honest, I would be far more concerned about party fraud than I would about voter fraud.

I seem to recall a few years ago some guy getting caught trying to throw out several hundred uncounted ballots in the garbage.

Diana Hignutt · Oct 28, 2014

ShaunHorton said:
To be honest, I would be far more concerned about party fraud than I would about voter fraud.

I seem to recall a few years ago some guy getting caught trying to throw out several hundred uncounted ballots in the garbage.

This.

Summons Nixon voice: But if the Government (read to include Poll Workers) does it, it's not illegal.

Fingers · Oct 29, 2014

benbradley said:
Undocumented voters, fat fingers and hanging chads, oh my!

Im not fat. Im fluffy.

Apologies to the original Fluffy.

juniper · Oct 29, 2014

William Haskins said:
show me one state that has any proof of any non-citizens being on their voting rolls...

CassandraW said:
Just saying -- an election can hinge on a surprisingly small number of votes.

(Though I don't think that's an excuse for putting unreasonable barriers in the way of legitimate voters.)

I usually read but do not comment in this forum cuz I just don't know enough about politics to participate.

That said, I moved to southern California in the late '90s and this had just happened. Was in the news all the time until the challenge was finally closed.

Incumbent Bob Dornan (R) vs Loretta Sanchez (D) for seat in US House of Reps

"Sanchez took the seat from six-term incumbent Dornan in November 1996 by just 984 votes. Dornan claimed the election was stolen through rampant illegal voting by non-citizens.

... Task force Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by non-citizens, not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt. He and other Republicans said the results nonetheless show that Dornan's challenge was not frivolous and that the GOP was not unfairly targeting Hispanic voters.

"The fact that we ended up with 748 illegal votes makes it clear his allegations had merit," Ehlers said."

... In explaining how the task force reached its conclusion, Ehlers said the panel began with a pool of 7,841 suspicious votes, culled from a comparison of California voting records with INS records. That number was whittled down as investigators weeded out individuals who either did not vote or who proved to be qualified to vote after all.

Eventually, Ehlers said, 624 illegal, non-citizen voters were identified, and they were added to the 124 voters that California officials had disqualified because of improperly delivered absentee ballots."

So Sanchez won by a very small amount. And is still there.

I don't know of any other voting fraud examples. But it has happened.

Now back into the cave. :gone:

Could non-citizens decide the November election?

William Haskins

poet

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

robeiae

Touch and go

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

CassandraW

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

CassandraW

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua

T Robinson

Born long ago, in a different era

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

robeiae

Touch and go

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

robeiae

Touch and go

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

ShaunHorton

AW's resident Velociraptor

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired

Fingers

My cat Toby

juniper

Always curious.