Friday, October 24, 2014

Could Non Citizens Determine the Mid Term Election?...

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.

Above from The Washington Post's Monkey Cage. Could it be true?

26 comments:

  1. The voter/election fraud problem is real, of course. I just found out that we have a Representative in Michigan who only made it onto the ballot due to voter fraud.

    I also found it interesting that the Republican approach toward this problem has been deemed ineffective. That might open the door to a bipartisan/nonpartisan solution to this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those are disconcerting statistics considering alien voting is patently illegal, under USC 611 with few exceptions noted therein. If true, there should be thousands in jail. If not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps they are not valid statistics.

      Delete
    2. I think you're right, Jerry. This is a bunch of BS designed to distract from GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters. It's the old strategy of accusing the other side first of what you're guilty of. Republicans are working HARD to steal as many close elections as they can. Chris Christie recently admitted he'd like to see EVEN MORE GOP cheating in 2016.

      Delete
    3. Jerry: I was wondering that also. I would have assumed that right off if they had come from the Moonie newsletter (Washington Times) or the Washington Examiner. But as it comes from the Post, which has higher standards, they have more weight. Still I'd like to see this corroborated (or refuted) somewhere.

      Delete
    4. It smells a little ripe, Jerry. From the WaPo source references itself, we note:
      ◾An October 18, 2010, story in the National Journal points out that “a five-year investigation by the Bush Justice Department…turned up virtually no evidence of widespread voter fraud.” Nevertheless, anti-immigrant activists are fond of pretending that fraudulent voting by non-citizens is a national epidemic." We would expect that the figures
      purposely or accidently, derive from certain local and county precincts where immigrant voting is legal: for certain, arrest and prosecution (quite vigorous in some states) of this, or any other, type of voter fraud is quite rare.

      Delete
    5. And yes, this Washington Post source gives reason for consideration. Unlike, say, mistaking the opinion found at Media Matters (a political campaign site with zero credibility as a journalistic source) as any sort of news.

      Delete
    6. BB: Which precincts allow non-Americans to vote in US elections as you describe?

      Delete
  3. It is a MUCH bigger problem that people who are legally entitled to vote are being prevented from doing so by laws that are supposedly intended to combat "voter fraud". MANY more people lose their right to vote when these laws are implemented than people who shouldn't vote being prevented from doing so (tens of thousands more). But that is the point of such "voter fraud prevention" laws... despite what some may say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. dmarks, I agree. Whether that's possible who knows. As they say figures don't lie but liars figure. Same may hold true for statistics and statiticians. But I'm not as confident of that as DS or Jerry.

    At any rate I doubt the number of non citizens voting is enough to swing many elections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: BB's thoughtful response is appreciated. As is Jerry's skepticism. More so than any knee-jerk paranoid conspiracy theory from anyone who is incapable of thinking outside the box, outside the party line.

      Delete
  5. We wonder what would result if there was closer to 100% participation in US elections?
    "Voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5 in 2012. That figure was also below the 60.4 level of the 2004 election but higher than the 54.2 percent turnout in the 2000 election." What's going on? Roughly 4 in 10 eligible voters don't vote. Too busy?
    Don't care? Turned off? Can't keep up with the new ID laws? It's optional, but certainly affects our
    elections far more than any fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For the past five years, I have been co-authoring a book on vote suppression (my co-author was nationally prominent during the now famous Florida recount of year 2000). This is the first time I have seen any study on non-citizen voting; needless to say, I am skeptical especially in view of one cited reference: The Cato Institute - a partisan think tank that is not considered objective.

    Here is an objective, non-partisan fact:

    Ratio: One case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters.

    More than a year ago, we debated the topic of voter suppression at PE, where I left this comment:

    Voter ID laws have been passed in 34 states (dominated by Republican-held legislatures) since the 2010 midterm elections. But studies have shown that in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and critics of these laws contend that the groups most likely to be turned away at the polls for not having valid state-issued IDs are: African Americans, Latinos, the poor, students and young voters, and senior citizens -- groups that traditionally vote Democratic.

    Even the Republican National Lawyers Association couldn’t find any voter fraud either. As part of its effort to build support for voter ID laws, the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified only 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country. That’s not even one per state per year. Yet, an estimated 3 to 5 million voters will be disenfranchised in each and every election - enough to alter many election outcomes
    .

    Scarcely three weeks ago, Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals – a Reagan appointee whose decisions often influence the direction of the SCOTUS – issue this opinion:

    There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.

    This opinion written by a conservative jurist appointed Ronald Reagan. You can read the entire opinion here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's the kind of "knee-jerk paranoid conspiracy theory" I was agreeing with.

      Delete
  7. I have generally been supportive of voter ID laws for what to me is obvious reasoning. At the same time it astounds me that given the argument for voter ID that advocates haven't devised an "ID Acquisition" friendly process for all age groups and situations. Cost? Agenda? It isn't really necessary?

    For me something as logical as proving you are a US Citizen and eligible to vote in local, state, and national elections should be as simple as making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proof of citizenship may sound logical and reasonable on paper, but not in the real world. Here’s why:

      According to a Harvard University study, the cost of obtaining required voter ID ranges from $75 to $175 — including direct fees for obtaining ID, plus transportation, time off from work, and other costs. These costs are especially prohibitive for low-income voters – such the poor, the elderly, and students – for an activity that carries no personal benefit other than exercising a right vote.

      It is often argued that voter ID restrictions constitute a form of poll tax - outlawed in 1964. Today’s costs of obtaining voter I.D. requirements, even in inflation-adjusted terms, is many times the level of poll taxes that existed before they were outlawed in 1964.

      In some instances, obtaining voter ID is impossible for some people. Many elderly folks, born in rural communities by midwives, do not have birth certificates. Baptismal records are often lost, destroyed, or not considered a form of valid ID. These folks are now being disenfranchised.

      Since voter fraud is virtually non-existent (remember - one case for every 14.6 million voters), fear of fraud has been used and abused as a cynical pretext. It is remarkable how some humanoids develop moral justifications to rationalize a self-interest. IOW, if it ain’t broke, fix it anyway by any and all means necessary. When an anti-regulation party suddenly demands regulations to regulate a non-existent problem, the underlying motive is highly suspicious to say the least.

      Returning Judge Posner’s opinion:

      As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials? If the Supreme Court once thought that requiring photo identification increases public confidence in elections, and experience and academic study since shows that the Court was mistaken, do we do a favor to the Court - do we increase public confidence in elections-by making the mistake a premise of our decision? Pressed to its logical extreme the panel’s interpretation of and deference to legislative facts would require upholding a photo ID voter law even if it were uncontested that the law eliminated no fraud but did depress turnout significantly.

      Judge Posner is a Reagan appointee.

      Delete
    2. You have to declare under penalty of perjury that you are who you say you are to vote. That's good enough in a court of law, it should be good enough at the ballot box. History shows that it is.

      Delete
    3. Not good enough if you subscribe to knee-jerk paranoid conspiracy theories that have you worrying people are going to be voting "Acorn-style".

      Delete
    4. Sometimes someone might choose to gnaw on ancient acorns they squirrel away and repeatedly bring out beyond all reason. i suppose the pointless chewing keeps them going through the winter, but there's no nutritional or any other value in it.

      Delete
  8. Why does a voter need to meet more identification requirements than the guy picking up a concealed carry permit?

    ReplyDelete
  9. (O)ct said: According to a Harvard University study, the cost of obtaining required voter ID ranges from $75 to $175 — including direct fees for obtaining ID, plus transportation, time off from work, and other costs. These costs are especially prohibitive for low-income voters – such the poor, the elderly, and students – for an activity that carries no personal benefit other than exercising a right vote."

    What if these were provided free and very easily?

    I 100% agree with you that to have to pay for one of these is a form of poll tax. Whether or not they end up required, it is very bad policy for the government not to provide a basic ID like this for free.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Whether or not they end up required, it is very bad policy for the government not to provide a basic ID like this for free."

    So, dmarks, does this statement mean that you are in favor of a national ID card for every citizen (and non-citizen?) provided free (taxpayer expense which of course is not free)?
    S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jerry: Most Americans have a good ID. I don't see a need therefore to replace this with some sort of national ID for everyone. But IF any sort of ID is required for voting, and someone does not have one, there should be 0 financial burden on those who do not have this ID in order to get one. Or any burden at all. Make it easy as possible. The money being paid already to the government for this necessary and mandated parts of its function (elections) should cover this.

      Delete
  11. I can see such an ID being given out when a person registers to vote. If you've given enough information to vote, it should be enough info for an ID. Now we just have to deal with people already registered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Jerry...

      Fees for the ID are a no-go, for me. They are "regressive" to use that term applied to taxation. As are many other government fees... such as drivers licenses...which would be better paid from the general fund (supplied by income taxes).

      Delete
    2. Well, I don't about that, dmarks. Fees have their place. They are kind of like a use tax. For example, you only pay the drivers license fee if you get a drivers license.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.