Massive voter fraud in the US - where's the investigation?

[crucible]

Double registrations…fact is, for such to be meaningful, to result in any change in any but local elections, so many people would have to do it, and do it on one side, that it would take some form of organized planning. The secret would never be safe and would, you can depend on it, be revealed somehow.

All it takes to police such activity is for the election board to send out a mailing every couple of years with a mandatory response if you are still at that address…and that, of course, will result in members of both parties being purged from the lists because, you know, people don’t always answer that sort of mail, or even look at it carefully, if at all. Well, perhaps slightly more Dems would get purged than Reps, though I’m not at all sure about that.

I suspect one block of voters who might be voting fraudulently are ex-felons, depending on the state (I don’t think the states have to abide by some Federal guideline on that, I could be wrong).
I doubt, though, that felons, in general, are so interested in performing a civic duty. Why? Get caught and go back to the joint? Besides, going to the election board to register and hanging out with the typical political appointee there might well be in violation of their parole particulars about association with known criminals…

Yes, I could see situations, particularly where automatic registration links with the DMV, or whatever, where undocumented folks could get registered and could be inspired to vote, figuring that if the county was doing their job, they wouldn’t have registered them in the first place. Since most of such folks are permanent, if not especially legal, residents, I don’t view voting by them as being the worst thing that ever happened.

[adaher]

@running_coach

So far, the investigation has turned up several Trump family members, Trump White House staff and appointees.
Good job, Cheeto!

Yeah, yeah, it’s funny how whenever a Republican bring up voter fraud, it takes five minutes for the media to find a Republican who committed voter fraud. Imagine if they called up a random dead person’s house to find out how that person managed to vote in person when they died two months before election day.

Oh wait, some local news outlets actually have done that sort of thing. The results are uniformly hilarious:

Action News Investigation: Voting from the Grave

2 Investigators: Chicago Voters Cast Ballots From Beyond The Grave

CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year

And that’s just one type of fraud. There’s also non citizens voting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.facd3a78668a

ANd yes, someone will next link to the “debunking”, but the authors stand by their study, and it’s hard to argue with “We called this non-citizen up and he said he voted”.

And of course, felon voting:

Hennepin Co. charges 47 cases of voter fraud

Now that idea that fraud is widespread is of course nonsense, but I dare say that voter fraud occurs more than people actually being disenfranchised in places where voter ID has been upheld by the courts.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

And that’s just one type of fraud. There’s also non citizens voting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.facd3a78668a

ANd yes, someone will next link to the “debunking”, but the authors stand by their study, and it’s hard to argue with “We called this non-citizen up and he said he voted”.

It is funny that you bring this three times already debunked piece. And to that item of “We called this non-citizen up and he said he voted” the reality is that the numbers are insignificant when compared to what they claimed (and the original numbers came from a different study that reported then that the number the 2014 authors used was biased and those authors reported later how), and one should never forget (what I’m I saying! Of course the right wing sources of information will always forget [sarcasm]) that the study conclusion and implication was that illegals were going to give the congress to the democrats.

The mid term election of 2014 indeed debunked that study in practice, and other social scientists and political researchers did it more formally, the thing is that you are still grasping that study, that as pointed also before, it is really funny how you never wonder why it comes up again and again. I do not wonder because it is like the creationists and climate change deniers do with a few studies, they ignore the debunking and the reasons why the reasoning was flawed. They are repeated in the ignorasphere because regardless if they are debunked they are on the surface the only source of “valid” justification to their flawed ideas.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-illegal-votes-evidence-debunked-214487

Donald Trump is making news with his false claim that he would have won the national popular vote if millions of non-citizens had not voted in November. As evidence, he and his staff are pointing to a study by Jesse Richman and his co-authors that was published in the journal Electoral Studies and advertised on the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog. 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.

I first came across the Richman study in 2014 when I was sent a link to an article by the authors promoting their newly published work. Their chief claim, and the one that made headlines, was that as many as 14 percent of noncitizens living in the United States had cast votes in recent elections. As soon as I saw that figure, I knew it was almost certainly nonsense, but what was troubling was that the “evidence” the scholars were pointing to was from a survey that I coordinate along with my colleagues Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University and Samantha Luks from the survey research firm YouGov. The survey is the Cooperative Congressional Election Study—a project that interviews tens of thousands of respondents every election year about their views on politics. A wealth of excellent research has come from this dataset in the past decade, providing important insights about our political world. Unfortunately, the Richman study doesn’t fall into that category. It is bad research, because it fails to understand basic facts about the data it uses.

Indeed, it took me and my colleagues only a few hours to figure out why the authors’ findings were wrong and to produce the evidence needed to prove as much. The authors were essentially basing their claims on two pieces of data associated with the large survey—a question that asks people whether they are citizens and official vote records to which each respondent has been matched to determine whether he or she had voted. Both these pieces of information include some small amounts of measurement error, as is true of all survey questions. What the authors failed to consider is that measurement error was entirely responsible for their results. In fact, once my colleagues and I accounted for that error, we found that there were essentially zero non-citizens who voted in recent elections.

The biggest source of error with the Richman study was its use of one of the survey questions to identify “non-citizens.” Survey respondents occasionally select the wrong response by accident—perhaps because they are rushing through and not reading the questions carefully, because they do not fully understand the terminology being used, or because they simply click on the wrong box on the page. Such errors are infrequent, but they happen in any survey. In this case, they were crucial, because Richman and his colleagues saw the very small number of people who answered that they were “immigrant non-citizens,” and extrapolated that (inaccurate) number to the U.S. population as a whole.

Trump wrong on percentage of noncitizen voters

Trump’s proof was rebutted

Trump was citing a 2014 article posted on Monkey Cage, a blog hosted by the Washington Post, his campaign told PolitiFact. The blog post was a precursor to a study that discussed the impact noncitizens could have on the November 2014 election.

The authors — Jesse Richman and David Earnest — determined more than 14 percent of noncitizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote.

Richman and Earnest used data collected from a Harvard-affiliated Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). The duo concluded that CCES’ data provided “sufficient samples” to conduct their research.

Trump accurately cites the study, but its findings have been highly contested.

Three experts wrote rebuttals of the study’s findings after the Post article appeared, and the study spawned another peer-reviewed article.

The main issue with the study is the sample size and the unreliable database of Internet respondents.

Shortly after Richman and Earnest’s study was published, the CCES released a newsletter encouraging researchers not to use its data in that way.

“The example for this analysis is Richman, Chattha, and Earnest (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections,” the letter says.

The CCES researchers — Stephen Ansolabehere, Samantha Luks and Brian Schaffner — reiterated their point in a Washington Post analysis last week. (This analysis became the subject of a study published in 2015 by the same authors.)

**Ansolabehere, Luks and Schaffner say a small percentage of respondents, who are citizens, accidentally misidentify themselves as noncitizens on the survey. This is because the respondents didn’t read the question carefully and accidentally selected the wrong response to the question.

How do they know this? Schaffner, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, said the group has conducted surveys where they ask people questions regarding their citizenship and some people change their answers.

“When we took out people who changed their answer on the citizenship question and only look at people who answered consistently that they were noncitizens, we found no reported noncitizens who voted,” Schaffner told PolitiFact.**

What I understood is what it was pointed out on ABC and other more respected sources, adaher and others continue to think the authors stand behind the study, but the situation here is worse, that flawed study of 2014 used data from a more serious study were the authors reported that that specific data was biased to begin with, those researchers later took a look to see how that was. indeed they reported that the reason was just confusion on the questions. Sure, the researchers from 2014 can stand behind the paper, but it is because they used what they thought was good data then. Well, the problem (and I have seen it in the creationist and climate change debates) is that the ones that get it wrong continue to be happy to report that it was ok using the now recognized flawed data from other studies. But many conservatives I see ignore the march of time or progress.

[QuickSilver]

@adaher

Now that idea that fraud is widespread is of course nonsense, but I dare say that voter fraud occurs more than people actually being disenfranchised in places where voter ID has been upheld by the courts.

As many as 600,000 Texas voters have been denied voting rights. That’s just one state requiring voter ID’s.

So you agree that widespread voter fraud is nonsense but it also “occurs more” than the numbers of disenfranchised voters.

Those can’t both be true. Do you want to adjust your claim?

[Iggy]

@VinylTurnip

I know for certain that 3-5 million illegal aliens did not vote in the election, because I asked them if they did and they said no.

Curiously, researchers basically asked non-citizens that question and 11.3% of them said they “voted, had their vote verified, or both.” The results were written up and published in the peer reviewed journal Electoral Studies.

I did a long post on this in another thread.

Highlights
[ul]
[li]A reasonable estimate is that Hillary Clinton got a roughly +500,000 vote swing from illegal aliens voting, not enough to account for her lead in the popular vote.[/li]
[li]Roughly 1.25 million illegal aliens likely cast votes in the 2016 election if the 11.3% self-admitted voting rate among that population holds true from their rate of participation in the 2008 election.[/li]
[li]North Carolina Democratic governor Cooper may reasonably owe his margin of victory to the illegal alien vote.[/li][/ul]

Whether these are a major problem worthy of a federal investigation is a bit of a matter of opinion. I am of the opinion that further research is warranted to attempt to confirm or refute the findings of the mentioned study. And I am of the opinion that measures should be taken to limit this problem, but by necessity such measures should not disadvantage eligible voters. Not sure such a solution exists.

Finally, I do think that such a study tends to refute the “no evidence” claim that some Democratic leaders have made. Disparate impact discrimination claims are based upon similar statistical evidence and such methodology is supported among proponents of such claims.

[IlikePlants]

We need a biometric national ID.

The fraud had been rampant for decades.

Purge the voter rolls. Dead people illegals, all of the machine stuff needs a paper trail too.

[VinylTurnip]

@IlikePlants

We need a biometric national ID.

Perhaps not a brain scan. We want to minimize disenfranchisement.

[MindsEye_Watering]

@IlikePlants

We need a biometric national ID.

Sure. A barcode tattoo. Perfect.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Iggy

Curiously, researchers basically asked non-citizens that question and 11.3% of them said they “voted, had their vote verified, or both.” The results were written up and published in the peer reviewed journal Electoral Studies…

Please post a link to the study. In this thread…

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Bridget_Burke

Please post a link to the study. In this thread…

It’s the same discredited survey mentioned by **GIGObuster **upthread. It’s been heavily promoted by Brietbart and others of it’s ilk, even after major problems with methodology have been clearly outlined, even by the authors themselves.

Basically, it’s the equivalent of the one single “smoking does not cause any health effects” study that the tobacco companies would heavily promote.

[GIGObuster]

@Iggy

Curiously, researchers basically asked non-citizens that question and 11.3% of them said they “voted, had their vote verified, or both.” The results were written up and published in the peer reviewed journal Electoral Studies.

And debunked in the same journal too and many other places. Again, ever since and even before the predictions or conclusions failed to materialize in the mid term elections of 2014 the doubts were already there regarding that paper.

Please check post #182 before continuing with the damage the misleading sources of information are counting that their readers will do for them.

Spencer/Braswell: This is not New. This is the Way it’s Done.

The Spencer Braswell gambit is not a new one for the anti science fringe. This in fact follows a well worn template that has been replicated a number of times, and not just by climate deniers.

Chris Mooney had a pitch-perfect take on the denial industry M.O. in this piece from 2004 –
…

They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They publicize the hell out of it. Activists get excited by the study, which has considerable political implications.

Before long, mainstream scientists catch on to what’s happening. They shake their heads. Some slam the article and the journal that published it, questioning the review process and the editor’s ideological leanings. In published critiques, they tear the paper to scientific shreds.

Embarrassed, the journal’s publisher backs away from the work. But it’s too late for that. The press has gotten involved, and though the work in question has been discredited in the world of science, partisans who favor its conclusions for ideological reasons will champion it for years to come.

The scientific waters are muddied. The damage is done.

That’s the start of a longer piece that compares Soon/Balliunas to similar hits undertaken by the creationist-science faction – who accuse their critics of “imposing a gag rule on science” — sound familiar?

The longer piece is worth reading as an addition to science history.

[Czarcasm]

I started a poll in Elections for people to vote on whether they would want a re-do or leave the results alone if it turned out the Presidential election was rigged.

[elucidator]

It cannot “turn out”. The Forces of Darkness have too much power for any such conclusion to go forward, the committee will not be formed, if formed, it will lean heavily, if the report is distasteful, it will not be released.

Winter is here.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

So your position is that she was just talking about DREAMers in Maryland, only voting in state elections, and just chose not to clarify that point?

Seems like a stretch, even for you.

Oh, and came across this. Wasn’t even looking for it, but as soon as I saw it, I thought of you.

You may find it informative, as using that edited video of yours is promoting fake news.

I do wonder if you knew you were spreading misinformation (I am sorry, alternative facts), or if you were taken in by it yourself.

She was apparently talking about legal citizens who could vote, but had family members who were not legal. She was concerned that, should they vote (completely legally), then there would be retaliation against their families.

[Falchion]

@k9bfriender

Oh, and came across this. Wasn’t even looking for it, but as soon as I saw it, I thought of you.

You may find it informative, as using that edited video of yours is promoting fake news.

I do wonder if you knew you were spreading misinformation (I am sorry, alternative facts), or if you were taken in by it yourself.

She was apparently talking about legal citizens who could vote, but had family members who were not legal. She was concerned that, should they vote (completely legally), then there would be retaliation against their families.

Reading the transcript, I think that it is fair to say that Obama’s answer is about US citizens with illegal alien family members. His first response is a little awkward (and potentially concerning), but the second response is clear enough.

But that doesn’t seem like a clear reading of the question. She asks: “Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens – and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country – are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?”

I read the “Dreamers” and “undocumented citizens [sic]” to describe the “millennials” who are “fearful of voting.” Then she poses the question in the first person. She is either expressing (what she thinks is) the viewpoint of this millennial undocumented citizen – in which case she’s expressly asking about whether or not these illegal aliens will be investigated and deported for voting. Or she’s expressing her opinion: As a lawful citizen with an illegal alien family, should I be afraid that my family will be investigated if I vote.

You (and Snopes) seem to assume it’s the second. But (according to Wikipedia) Rodriguez’ parents are Puerto Rican. So, her experience would not include that fear. And, also, the reference to “Dreamers” (i.e., the millennial undocumented citizens) makes no sense as those people are (by definition) too young.

[elucidator]

Man behind Trump’s claim that millions voted illegally says he’s ‘months...

Man behind Trump voter fraud claim won’t have proof for months

This is Greg Phillips, the guy who claims to have “evidence” of three million bogus votes by illegals, will not have his evidence available for “months”. Has a day job, doing this as a volunteer, maybe if somebody gave him some $?

(He didn’t actually ask for money. Just pointed out that he is busy.)

[ThelmaLou]

Apologies if someone already said this.

Now I get it.

Trump blathering on and on about “voter fraud” was/is a deliberate and calculated strategy to lay the foundation for this:

In private meeting, Pence vows ‘full evaluation of voting rolls’ over claims of fraud

In a private meeting with congressional Republicans this week, Vice President Pence vowed that the Trump administration would pursue a wide-ranging probe of voting rolls in the United States to examine whether millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election as President Trump has charged.

“What I can tell you is that I would anticipate that the administration is going to initiate a full evaluation of voting rolls in the country, the overall integrity of our voting system in the wake of this past election,” Pence told Republican lawmakers during a question-and-answer session at their annual policy retreat in Philadelphia this week.

The vice president’s comments, captured in a recording obtained by The Post, give the clearest picture yet of how the Trump administration intends to investigate whether 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 election, an unsupported claim President Trump has made…

Having sowed the seeds of doubt in a (typically) disingenuous fashion, the Trumpster now feels he has the justification to send his minions through the voter registration machinery and get it tuned up in time for the mid-term elections.

In fact, there is NO justification for this kind of sweeping investigation-- and it’s yet another waste of money, just like the great wall.

And, BTW, the meeting that was “secretly” taped? :rolleyes: Yeah, sure. Those jerks were playing to the crowd that they knew were going to hear/read every word.

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

Oh, and came across this. Wasn’t even looking for it, but as soon as I saw it, I thought of you.

You may find it informative, as using that edited video of yours is promoting fake news.

I do wonder if you knew you were spreading misinformation (I am sorry, alternative facts), or if you were taken in by it yourself.

This is so ridiculous it gets you honorable mention in the hall of infamy. Back in post #161, I successfully predicted the future and wrote a note, just for you. Here’s what it said:

@HurricaneDitka

• I suspect someone will misunderstand this and think that I’m claiming Obama was encouraging illegals to vote, because that claim is what originally made this video famous. I don’t think that. I think it was a shitty thing for Gina Rodriguez to do, and she put Obama in an awkward position. He certainly didn’t go out of his way to discourage illegals from voting, but he handled the awkward question rather deftly, carefully parsing his words to not explicitly encourage illegals to vote, while also trying not to offend part of his base. He quickly steered the conversation back to legal voters who have illegal immigrant family members.

You didn’t instantly think of me. You didn’t think at all, instantly or for a prolonged period, before you posted this. It’s so utterly wrong and completely countered by my disclaimer in post #161, that if I were you I’d slink away from this thread and this entire board with my tail between my legs and my head hung in shame.

Secondly, the video I posted wasn’t “edited”, at least not in the context you’re using. It was the original interview, as it “aired”, in it’s entirety.

@k9bfriender

She was apparently talking about legal citizens who could vote, but had family members who were not legal. She was concerned that, should they vote (completely legally), then there would be retaliation against their families.

I am well aware that Obama steered the conversation back to citizens that can legally vote, but in her original question, SHE was clearly talking about illegals voting. That’s why I quoted her question and not Obama’s answer. In her question, she used terms that have specific meanings. “DREAMers” and “undocumented citizens - and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country”. Do you know what these words mean? Do you understand what a DREAMer is? Or what “undocumented” means in the context of immigrants?

Maybe you’re just out of your depth here. The discussion seems to be going right over your head.

[elucidator]

@HurricaneDitka

…I am well aware that Obama steered the conversation back to citizens that can legally vote, but in her original question, SHE was clearly talking about illegals voting…

Uh, no. As the Snope makes abundantly clear, there was no “steering the conversation back” from a subject that was never broached in the first place. And, of course, she was not “clearly talking about illegals voting”.

Other than those minor details, your typing was quite good.

[HurricaneDitka]

@elucidator

Uh, no. As the Snope makes abundantly clear, there was no “steering the conversation back” from a subject that was never broached in the first place. And, of course, she was not “clearly talking about illegals voting”.

Other than those minor details, your typing was quite good.

You’re going to try to claim that a question that included the words “DREAMers” and “undocumented” “never broached” the subject? Sad.