Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Illegally Cast Votes Do Matter

  1. #1
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174

    Illegally Cast Votes Do Matter

    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.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...mber-election/

    Not that it makes a difference to those who have decided that the integrity of our election system is not a big deal, but for the rest of us, more information on how votes cast by people not legally allowed to vote disenfranchise the rest of us (and, for the most part support Democrats).
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  2. #2
    Guns Network Contributor 03/2015 jakebrake's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    philly burbs
    Posts
    320
    illegally cast votes are more than a factor...here in the philly area, we have examples that would make your skin crawl. boxes of ballots in trunks of cars, 103% of registered voters in a district showing up to vote, it's enough to make you puke.

  3. #3
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,846
    This is why Democrats like LAGC and Kadmos want open borders and illegals given amnesty. Keep the commies in power forever whatever the cost like legitimate elections. The ends justify the means for these %$#@^&%$

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens

    Self reported and verified 5
    So, out of 32,800 respondents they were able to verify that 5 people stated that they were non-citizens and people with those names voted?

    Doesn't seem like a lot to worry about, especially when one considers these are "self reported", which means you could be looking at 5 citizens who ticked the wrong box and listed themselves as non-citizens.

  5. #5
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    So, out of 32,800 respondents they were able to verify that 5 people stated that they were non-citizens and people with those names voted?

    Doesn't seem like a lot to worry about, especially when one considers these are "self reported", which means you could be looking at 5 citizens who ticked the wrong box and listed themselves as non-citizens.
    Naturally you can't read when it comes to illegal voting....

  6. #6
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    So, out of 32,800 respondents they were able to verify that 5 people stated that they were non-citizens and people with those names voted?

    Doesn't seem like a lot to worry about, especially when one considers these are "self reported", which means you could be looking at 5 citizens who ticked the wrong box and listed themselves as non-citizens.
    You really need to read the whole article and not just to the point that seems to support your belief. The very next paragraph after the table use pulled the number 5 from says;

    Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
    From the paragraph preceding the table, actually the last sentence before the table;

    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.
    This would mean it is estimated that, just for the illegal immigrant population, about 6500 unqualified voters participated in the election nation wide. Much more than 5.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  7. #7
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    You really need to read the whole article and not just to the point that seems to support your belief. The very next paragraph after the table use pulled the number 5 from says;



    From the paragraph preceding the table, actually the last sentence before the table;



    This would mean it is estimated that, just for the illegal immigrant population, about 6500 unqualified voters participated in the election nation wide. Much more than 5.
    I suggest you reread it, the only got responses of "339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010", so there is no way in hell to get an estimate of 6500.

    The "6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010" represent an estimated 21 and 8 persons respectively.

    Giving a total of 29 "estimated" issues out of 88,200 respondents.

    It's also worth reading down a tiny bit more...

    There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error
    Pretty much what I thought..

  8. #8
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    I suggest you reread it, the only got responses of "339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010", so there is no way in hell to get an estimate of 6500.

    The "6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010" represent an estimated 21 and 8 persons respectively.

    Giving a total of 29 "estimated" issues out of 88,200 respondents.

    It's also worth reading down a tiny bit more...



    Pretty much what I thought..
    I can't believe I have to explain this to you as you seem very educated. This is based on statistical analysis. You sample a portion of a population and then extrapolate their behavior out to the entire population. This is done in advertising, politics, and I use it at my work very effectively to forecast behavior of a population in the future. Now, if 2.2% of non-citizens voted in 2010 and there were about 300,000 people who were here illegally, that gives you a little more than 6500. What you are trying to do makes no sense based on the first paragraph I quoted where they study found that Senator Franken's win in Minnesota was well within the expected number of illegally cast votes.

    The end of the article they do account for the possibility of a small sample size and self-reported data, but this was taken into account in their statistical analysis. You are trying to disregard the entire study based on this, already accounted for, uncertainty. Not generally like you.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  9. #9
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    Pretty much what you seem to think is that everything posted here is wrong, ignorant, bigoted...whether it is or not...and it is your job to always take the opposing view and shine the light of truth to educate us all. Sometimes I feel like saying, ?Beware the man who says he's here to cute your ignorance and restore you to logical thought".

    I always get so aggravated thinking you would have been a good Jew in Germany.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  10. #10
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,846
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    I can't believe I have to explain this to you as you seem very educated. This is based on statistical analysis. You sample a portion of a population and then extrapolate their behavior out to the entire population. This is done in advertising, politics, and I use it at my work very effectively to forecast behavior of a population in the future. Now, if 2.2% of non-citizens voted in 2010 and there were about 300,000 people who were here illegally, that gives you a little more than 6500. What you are trying to do makes no sense based on the first paragraph I quoted where they study found that Senator Franken's win in Minnesota was well within the expected number of illegally cast votes.

    The end of the article they do account for the possibility of a small sample size and self-reported data, but this was taken into account in their statistical analysis. You are trying to disregard the entire study based on this, already accounted for, uncertainty. Not generally like you.
    You underestimate he and his parties desire to rig elections.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    I can't believe I have to explain this to you as you seem very educated. This is based on statistical analysis. You sample a portion of a population and then extrapolate their behavior out to the entire population. This is done in advertising, politics, and I use it at my work very effectively to forecast behavior of a population in the future.
    Yep, I know what statistical sampling is. I also know it's often inaccurate, particularly if you let every data point be from a different source,self reporting for instance, it's assumed there will be errors. Which is why most polls will disclaim a plus or minus of 5%. Which puts the 2008 data only 1.4% outside the margin and the 2010 data well within half the margin.

    It's barely statistically significant for 2008, let alone 2010.

    Now, if 2.2% of non-citizens voted in 2010 and there were about 300,000 people who were here illegally, that gives you a little more than 6500.
    A huge "if", and only backed by what may be morons checking the wrong box on a form, or jokers who didn't take it seriously and thought it would be funny.

    What you are trying to do makes no sense based on the first paragraph I quoted where they study found that Senator Franken's win in Minnesota was well within the expected number of illegally cast votes.
    Those votes were checked and rechecked to make sure there weren't problems.

    The end of the article they do account for the possibility of a small sample size and self-reported data, but this was taken into account in their statistical analysis. You are trying to disregard the entire study based on this, already accounted for, uncertainty. Not generally like you.
    No, they don't "take it into account", they acknowledge that this rather obvious point could in fact mean the entire study is wrong. They try to walk it back a bit by saying they kinda checked the races of people to sort of verify.

    You've got to make sure your seeing the whole forest here...29 "possibles" out of 88,200....which is I figure about .03%

    Which is way way way way inside the margin of error for any poll

  12. #12
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174
    Kad, your desire to believe there is no problem borders on religious fervor. The margin of error you use to show that there could be no problem works the other way as well. There could be a much larger problem than there study indicates, but there is no need to worry about that as you have already decided there is no problem.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  13. #13
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    Kad, your desire to believe there is no problem borders on religious fervor.
    I prefer proof to panic.


    The margin of error you use to show that there could be no problem works the other way as well.
    Now this is true. And in my opinion it would be more likely that under-reporting would be a issue, simply because it seems likely that people wouldn't want to admit to illegal behavior.

    However that opinion is anecdotal at best.

    There could be a much larger problem than there study indicates, but there is no need to worry about that as you have already decided there is no problem.
    Typically the Republican party has been long on accusation and short on evidence of voter fraud. And they have shown a propensity to carefully word statements and statistics to seem much more significant than they actually are. It's purposefully deceptive, and that annoys me. So I choose to take a careful look to see what is actually going on, to see the big picture.

  14. #14
    Senior Member PROBASCO's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PACIFIC NORTHWEST
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    So, out of 32,800 respondents they were able to verify that 5 people stated that they were non-citizens and people with those names voted?

    Doesn't seem like a lot to worry about, especially when one considers these are "self reported", which means you could be looking at 5 citizens who ticked the wrong box and listed themselves as non-citizens.
    In two years of research, We found over 1000 in Oregon, it is a long laborious task checking and cross referencing. And while 1200 may not be much is a presidential election, when some local challenges were won by a few hundred votes, it meant the difference. ANYONE who does not want 100% voter integrity is a not only a fool, but an asshole. Mexico has better voter integrity than the USA with voter ID cards that have fingerprints and photos.

  15. #15
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    Typically the Republican party has been long on accusation and short on evidence of voter fraud. And they have shown a propensity to carefully word statements and statistics to seem much more significant than they actually are. It's purposefully deceptive, and that annoys me. So I choose to take a careful look to see what is actually going on, to see the big picture.
    That is because, in a system of secret balloting as we have, it is very difficult after the election is held to prove voter fraud, it has to be stopped before it starts. For every case of voter fraud and illegally cast ballot you say it is not a big deal, only one was found, totally ignoring that finding one generally means, especially in fraud, that much more was missed. This is like those sailors that I hear about who get caught using drugs. Every single one of them is always caught on the first time. Can you believe it? I can't. It is almost impossible that every single sailor we catch for drug use is caught the first time they use.

    Your statement that Senator Franken's election were checked and found to be valid is not a factual statement. It is more factual to say that they did their best to check all the votes. There were numerous statistical anomalies for Senator Franken in that election, ballots found in cars, votes counted for Franken when his name was not checked based on the ballot being marked for President Obama (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122644940271419147). Republicans claim voter fraud in close elections is because expected voter behavior does not happen. Suddenly voter behavior swings overwhelmingly in the Democrats favor. When Governor Gregoire was elected as the governor of Washington the first time it was only because of boxes of ballots, more than one and in more than one district, that were found in cars, closets, and behind doors in basements. This sounds perfectly legitimate, if you don't care about the integrity of the process.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  16. #16
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by PROBASCO View Post
    In two years of research, We found over 1000 in Oregon, it is a long laborious task checking and cross referencing. And while 1200 may not be much is a presidential election, when some local challenges were won by a few hundred votes, it meant the difference. ANYONE who does not want 100% voter integrity is a not only a fool, but an asshole. Mexico has better voter integrity than the USA with voter ID cards that have fingerprints and photos.
    You found 1000 of what?

    I want fair and free elections as much as the next guy, but it's a human institution where over 100 million votes get cast and counted in about 15 hours, there will be a few problems.

    Sure I want 100% accuracy, but I also realize that may be unattainable. At least not without going to extreme measures. Measures which may be worse for civil liberties than the slight errors.

    It's amusing to me how just a decade ago you all were against mandatory or universal ID, on account of it being a violation of civil liberties, and now you are 180 degrees on it because you think Mexicans are stealing elections.

    Yes, one vote can swing an election, I get that. And we should attempt within reason to make sure there are as few flaws as possible, and shoot for zero errors. But we also have to insure that people who are entitled to vote are able to vote, by not enacting draconian measures.

    Nor is freaking out before and after every election helpful. It makes people say "why bother?". It has elected officials carefully crafting last minute legislation to try to aid their own party under the guise of "better elections".

    And of course it undermines the results. If there is proof of real errors then fine, someone can be removed from office they didn't actually win. But to just suggest the whole thing is tainted, without proof, undermines our country, and further divides us as a nation.

  17. #17
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadmos View Post
    It's amusing to me how just a decade ago you all were against mandatory or universal ID, on account of it being a violation of civil liberties, and now you are 180 degrees on it because you think Mexicans are stealing elections.
    Who said anything about Mexican's? Who said anything about federal IDs? That is what we were/are against. State IDs, on the other hand, have not been an issue, at least not that I have heard.

    Yes, one vote can swing an election, I get that. And we should attempt within reason to make sure there are as few flaws as possible, and shoot for zero errors. But we also have to insure that people who are entitled to vote are able to vote, by not enacting draconian measures.
    Like showing an ID? That is so draconian.

    Nor is freaking out before and after every election helpful. It makes people say "why bother?". It has elected officials carefully crafting last minute legislation to try to aid their own party under the guise of "better elections".
    There is no one freaking out, at least not here. As for last minute legislation, the legislation has been debated on this board for years. It is not crafted at the last minute, unless you are against it in which case no amount of time will prevent it from being "last minute."

    And of course it undermines the results. If there is proof of real errors then fine, someone can be removed from office they didn't actually win. But to just suggest the whole thing is tainted, without proof, undermines our country, and further divides us as a nation.
    Except that when proof is provided, as it was again, you discount it as not a big deal.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  18. #18
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    That is because, in a system of secret balloting as we have, it is very difficult after the election is held to prove voter fraud, it has to be stopped before it starts. For every case of voter fraud and illegally cast ballot you say it is not a big deal, only one was found, totally ignoring that finding one generally means, especially in fraud, that much more was missed. This is like those sailors that I hear about who get caught using drugs. Every single one of them is always caught on the first time. Can you believe it? I can't. It is almost impossible that every single sailor we catch for drug use is caught the first time they use.
    It's faulty logic. That something occasionally happens and gets seen does not mean it's constantly going on and people are getting away with it. It's like saying because we caught Jeffrey Dahmer eating people that there must be large numbers of cannibals getting away with it.

    The "secret" part of the ballot is who you voted for...not that you voted. Your name and address are being noted every time you vote, so we can know who voted and when. Just not who they voted for.

    Your statement that Senator Franken's election were checked and found to be valid is not a factual statement. It is more factual to say that they did their best to check all the votes. There were numerous statistical anomalies for Senator Franken in that election, ballots found in cars, votes counted for Franken when his name was not checked based on the ballot being marked for President Obama (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122644940271419147). Republicans claim voter fraud in close elections is because expected voter behavior does not happen. Suddenly voter behavior swings overwhelmingly in the Democrats favor. When Governor Gregoire was elected as the governor of Washington the first time it was only because of boxes of ballots, more than one and in more than one district, that were found in cars, closets, and behind doors in basements. This sounds perfectly legitimate, if you don't care about the integrity of the process.
    And as usual you get these vague "stories". Ballots in a car! Ballots in a closet! And the media (or the Republicans) make it sound nefarious. When in actuality it was totally normal for those ballots to be in that car. The law there was that absentee ballots get sent to a central location and then driven to the individual polls on election day, to where the ballots would have been cast. If the worker isn't able to get to all the polling places then they were to be brought back to a central location and locked in a secure room (a closet).

  19. #19
    Senior Member Kadmos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ltorlo64 View Post
    Who said anything about Mexican's? Who said anything about federal IDs? That is what we were/are against. State IDs, on the other hand, have not been an issue, at least not that I have heard.
    It's been said on here several times.

    Like showing an ID? That is so draconian.
    It's a problem if you've been voting for 60 years without it and suddenly find you need it the day of the election.

    There is no one freaking out, at least not here.
    We've had dozens of freak out threads here about voter fraud that 99% of the time turns out to be based on "well, it could happen", not actual proof.

    Except that when proof is provided, as it was again, you discount it as not a big deal.
    When the proof ends up being along the lines of a self reported survey that kinda sorta might have identified 29 possible "issues" out of 88,000 questionnaires, then yeah, I'm going to discount it as 1. Far from being proof of fraud and 2. Hardly even indicative of proof of an actual potential issue.

    Frankly, I'd call that pretty damn good news, statistically speaking even if true it would make our polls 99.97% accurate (that .03% error I previously mentioned). Sure it leaves room for improvement, but I think that's pretty fucking fantastic for a government run system!

  20. #20
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655
    My favorite quote from that article in the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by WaPo
    We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
    In other words, mandatory photo ID doesn't solve jack-shit.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •