Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Study finds voter fraud swung elections

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 1:16:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010."

The study also found 80% of non-citizens vote Democrat, and that they probably swung close elections in 2008 to the Democrats (ie. NC presidental and MN senate). Thoughts?

(http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:04:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you sure about that? The 2008 MN senate race was a landslide victory for the dem. 65-35. Unless their populate is 50% non-citizens, then it didn't swing that election. Also, even if NC swung the other way, Obama would still have won by a ton.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:06:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:04:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Are you sure about that? The 2008 MN senate race was a landslide victory for the dem. 65-35. Unless their populate is 50% non-citizens, then it didn't swing that election. Also, even if NC swung the other way, Obama would still have won by a ton.

The 2008 MN senate race was one of the closest in history and wasn't decided until a recount several months later...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:08:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If we just stop and do the math, if 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008, that comes to about 0.3% of the population. Factor in that only most, not all, are voting dem, it comes to about a 0.2% swing. And 2010 was about 1/3 of 2008. That is not to say that nothing should be done or it should just be allowed, but it is not a major issue.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:06:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:04:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Are you sure about that? The 2008 MN senate race was a landslide victory for the dem. 65-35. Unless their populate is 50% non-citizens, then it didn't swing that election. Also, even if NC swung the other way, Obama would still have won by a ton.

The 2008 MN senate race was one of the closest in history and wasn't decided until a recount several months later...

Sorry, I had the 2012 pulled up. That was the blowout.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:08:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If we just stop and do the math, if 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008, that comes to about 0.3% of the population. Factor in that only most, not all, are voting dem, it comes to about a 0.2% swing. And 2010 was about 1/3 of 2008. That is not to say that nothing should be done or it should just be allowed, but it is not a major issue.

6.4% of illegals voted
and about 60% of eligible voters vote

so I guess that 0.24% should be out of that roughly 60% of the entire population, not the 100%

which makes the 'swing' in a given average national vote like for a president roughly 0.4%
( if you do the equation 0.24/60 = x/100 , solving for x )

However, even the presidential election's not based on a simple vote count due to the electoral college, so an analysis of the actual sway of such illegals would have to account for the particular political balance of those areas where they're concentrated...

So, if there truly are that many non-citizens voting it's kind of tough to say exactly what effect it's having :/

and... That's just illegal votes of non-citizens, makes you wonder about other forms of fraud that may be going on.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:28:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:25:36 PM, mortsdor wrote:
6.4% of illegals voted

I suppose I should have said 6.4% of non-citizens voted, as some of those non-citizens may well be here legally :/
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:39:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:04:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Are you sure about that? The 2008 MN senate race was a landslide victory for the dem. 65-35. Unless their populate is 50% non-citizens, then it didn't swing that election. Also, even if NC swung the other way, Obama would still have won by a ton.

No, it wasn't. Minnesota's race that year was decided by only 368 votes.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:41:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:39:28 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:04:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Are you sure about that? The 2008 MN senate race was a landslide victory for the dem. 65-35. Unless their populate is 50% non-citizens, then it didn't swing that election. Also, even if NC swung the other way, Obama would still have won by a ton.

No, it wasn't. Minnesota's race that year was decided by only 312 votes.

fixed
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:49:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:04:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Are you sure about that? The 2008 MN senate race was a landslide victory for the dem. 65-35. Unless their populate is 50% non-citizens, then it didn't swing that election. Also, even if NC swung the other way, Obama would still have won by a ton.

That is true, yes, he's still would have won. But the fact electoral votes could have been improperly allocated is appalling.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:52:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.

Studies with admitted limitations are not federal investigations.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:53:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:52:05 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.

Studies with admitted limitations are not federal investigations.

So only federal investigations are valid now? Interesting.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:54:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:53:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:52:05 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.

Studies with admitted limitations are not federal investigations.

So only federal investigations are valid now? Interesting.

No, but I think that if there was such obvious voter fraud, there would have been a very lengthy investigation.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 3:57:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:54:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:53:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:52:05 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.

Studies with admitted limitations are not federal investigations.

So only federal investigations are valid now? Interesting.

No, but I think that if there was such obvious voter fraud, there would have been a very lengthy investigation.

If it was obvious it would have been reported sooner.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 4:00:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:57:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:54:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:53:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:52:05 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.

Studies with admitted limitations are not federal investigations.

So only federal investigations are valid now? Interesting.

No, but I think that if there was such obvious voter fraud, there would have been a very lengthy investigation.

If it was obvious it would have been reported sooner.

And what, do you want to give McCain a couple electoral college votes? If you said that non-citizens accounted for 10 or 15% of the voting population, I'd agree with you on this point, but two instances where they "might" have made an impact? Please
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 4:07:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 4:00:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:57:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:54:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:53:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:52:05 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.

Studies with admitted limitations are not federal investigations.

So only federal investigations are valid now? Interesting.

No, but I think that if there was such obvious voter fraud, there would have been a very lengthy investigation.

If it was obvious it would have been reported sooner.

And what, do you want to give McCain a couple electoral college votes? If you said that non-citizens accounted for 10 or 15% of the voting population, I'd agree with you on this point, but two instances where they "might" have made an impact? Please

In the case of the elections, they're already done. As a resident of North Carolina, I'd prefer my state not have elections swung due to voter fraud, but nothing can be changed. The problem is this may have resulted in giving one party a supermajority by swinging the MN race. That's a big frigging deal.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 4:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 4:07:21 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 4:00:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:57:44 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:54:24 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:53:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:52:05 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:46:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:37:49 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Unless you have concrete numbers on how much voter fraud there was in specific spots, I'm not giving the time of day.

This is a concrete number. There will be variation from state-to-state, of course, but in a race decided by .007%, there would need to be an anomaly to change it. If only 0.65% of Minnesota's non-citizens voted (which would be 5.75 percentage points less than the study's report suggests), that would be enough to make up the margin of victory. In North Carolina, a turnout of 5.1% of non citizens (1.3 percentage points less than the study's report suggests) would have been sufficient to swing the election. If you don't see a problem here, it is your fault, not mine.

Studies with admitted limitations are not federal investigations.

So only federal investigations are valid now? Interesting.

No, but I think that if there was such obvious voter fraud, there would have been a very lengthy investigation.

If it was obvious it would have been reported sooner.

And what, do you want to give McCain a couple electoral college votes? If you said that non-citizens accounted for 10 or 15% of the voting population, I'd agree with you on this point, but two instances where they "might" have made an impact? Please

In the case of the elections, they're already done. As a resident of North Carolina, I'd prefer my state not have elections swung due to voter fraud, but nothing can be changed. The problem is this may have resulted in giving one party a supermajority by swinging the MN race. That's a big frigging deal.

It is a big frigging deal, but I won't agree unless it says that the MN race was definitely swung by non-citizens.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 4:30:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm interested to see the results of the study itself, which doesn't appear to be published yet. This goes against the generally accepted data of there being very little voter fraud, so the study is worthy of real examination.

Interestingly, the article claims that the voter ID laws that have been put into effect have not stemmed the fraud evidenced in the study. The US should have the same fraud protections as Canada does rather than these "hidden agenda" voter ID laws.

The article gives no solutions, but if there is indeed a real problem it needs to be addressed. That said, I hardly see the GOP as the poor, unfairly treated underdog here-- they have the benefit of gerrymandering firmly on their side in the congressional races.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 5:00:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 3:25:36 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:08:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If we just stop and do the math, if 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008, that comes to about 0.3% of the population. Factor in that only most, not all, are voting dem, it comes to about a 0.2% swing. And 2010 was about 1/3 of 2008. That is not to say that nothing should be done or it should just be allowed, but it is not a major issue.

6.4% of illegals voted
and about 60% of eligible voters vote

so I guess that 0.24% should be out of that roughly 60% of the entire population, not the 100%

which makes the 'swing' in a given average national vote like for a president roughly 0.4%
( if you do the equation 0.24/60 = x/100 , solving for x )


However, even the presidential election's not based on a simple vote count due to the electoral college, so an analysis of the actual sway of such illegals would have to account for the particular political balance of those areas where they're concentrated...

So, if there truly are that many non-citizens voting it's kind of tough to say exactly what effect it's having :/

and... That's just illegal votes of non-citizens, makes you wonder about other forms of fraud that may be going on.

Though you have to remember that about 80% vote dem, so (the 20% reps neutralize 20% dem, leaving only 60% swing of that 0.4%) the actual impact is still only about 0.2 - 0.25%
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 5:24:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 5:00:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:25:36 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 10/25/2014 3:08:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
If we just stop and do the math, if 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008, that comes to about 0.3% of the population. Factor in that only most, not all, are voting dem, it comes to about a 0.2% swing. And 2010 was about 1/3 of 2008. That is not to say that nothing should be done or it should just be allowed, but it is not a major issue.

6.4% of illegals voted
and about 60% of eligible voters vote

so I guess that 0.24% should be out of that roughly 60% of the entire population, not the 100%

which makes the 'swing' in a given average national vote like for a president roughly 0.4%
( if you do the equation 0.24/60 = x/100 , solving for x )


However, even the presidential election's not based on a simple vote count due to the electoral college, so an analysis of the actual sway of such illegals would have to account for the particular political balance of those areas where they're concentrated...

So, if there truly are that many non-citizens voting it's kind of tough to say exactly what effect it's having :/

and... That's just illegal votes of non-citizens, makes you wonder about other forms of fraud that may be going on.

Though you have to remember that about 80% vote dem, so (the 20% reps neutralize 20% dem, leaving only 60% swing of that 0.4%) the actual impact is still only about 0.2 - 0.25%

I'm sure they accounted for that when they listed the percentages in the article.