Illegal Voting by the Numbers

The Stream ^ | 1/30/17 | William M Briggs

[markomalley]

How many votes in the past presidential election were cast illegally or fraudulently? Some say none to few. Others, such as President Trump, say a couple of million. The mainstream press insist there is “no evidence” for systemic problems in the electoral process. Yet evidence does exist, only that evidence is disputed or ignored.

Here is the story so far. President Trump lost the popular election by more than two million votes, apparently due largely to the massive number of blue votes concentrated in California and New York. Yet shortly after the election, he said, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” He later estimated the fraudulent margin to be some 3 to 5 million.

He also said, “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!”

There has been no systematic attempt to estimate the illicit vote count, and such an estimate is required before dismissing or accepting Mr. Trump’s claims.

Mr Trump’s claims launched waves of horrified apoplexy in the press (who at this early point know no other reaction). The New York Times was reduced to using the L-word, i.e. “liar.” The Washington Post said Trump’s charge “is not supported by any verifiable facts.” Even politicians in his own party, such as Senator John McCain, said, “I obviously have seen no evidence of illegal voting.”

Various rhetorical tricks then played out in the mainstream press to give the impression illegal voting was rare in the extreme, or even non-existent. An academic study which estimated there were some 800,000 illegal votes from non-citizens was excoriated. Much evidence in plain site was just plain ignored. Yet, so far, there has been no systematic attempt to estimate the illicit vote count, and such an estimate is required before dismissing or accepting Mr. Trump’s claims. The best that can now be said is nobody knows the right answer.

Sloppy “Fact” Checking

One writer at the Washington Post “combed through the news-aggregation system Nexis to find demonstrated cases of absentee or in-person voter fraud.” And since this reporter could only find four reported instances, he said, “There is simply no evidence that fraudulent ballots played any significant role in the 2016 presidential election whatsoever.”

But since the point is question is fraud that has (thus far) gone undetected, arguing that since newspaper accounts of fraud don’t exist that therefore actual fraud doesn’t exist is not unlike arguing that since Pravda didn’t print reports of arrests of political prisoners in Moscow under Stalin, that therefore the arrests didn’t happen.

The controversial site FactCheck.org produced, at times, a petulant report, calling Trump’s claims “bogus.” FactCheck.org relied in part on the paper “The Truth About Voter Fraud” published by the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice. It is a remarkable document that takes great pains to suggest that fraud almost never occurs by emphasizing instances where fraud was searched for but was not found. For instance, this bullet point: “In Washington in 2005, an individual asked county offices to investigate the citizenship status of 1,668 registered voters based on their ‘foreign-sounding names.’ There are no reports of which we are aware that any individual on the submitted list was actually a noncitizen.” This is clever because it also brings with it the slight whiff of racism, for which there is no defense.

The Brennan report argues repeatedly that those who break the law to come to the USA would not likely break the law a second time to vote because the “payoff,” i.e. their one additional vote, is so small. But that same logic (as is well known) applies to the legal citizen voter deciding whether to head to the polls knowing his one vote also counts for almost nothing in a general election.

Pew and Actual Fraud

FactCheck.org admits Mr. Trump quotes accurately from the Pew Report “Inaccurate, Costly and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs and Upgrade“, before downplaying the report because it doesn’t specifically mention fraud. Instead, Pew says things like “Approximately 24 million — one of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate,” “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters,” and “Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” While none of these are direct indicators of fraud, all are in the direction of fraud.

FactCheck.org does bring up an instance of fraud:

Like certain other metropolitan areas, Chicago is, as all know, a Democratic machine town with a long history of electoral shenanigans. In the linked example, the Chicago Tribune reported that a Democratic precinct worker was caught taking a straight-Democrat ballot and running it through a vote-counting machine 198 times. In that same article, “U.S. Atty. Dan Webb repeated contentions previously made by federal investigators that of the 1 million votes cast in Chicago in the Nov. 2, 1982, general election, about 100,000, or 10 percent, were fraudulent.”

Also: Webb “estimated that 80,000 illegal aliens are registered to vote here” and that by that time some had already been convicted for fraudulent voting. Several election officials were also convicted and others awaited trial.

FactCheck.org then pooh-poohs these facts by reminding the reader that “Trump urged his supporters to ‘watch your polling booths…,'” thus suggesting cheating could not have occurred under these watchful eyes, and by citing “experts” who say “the kind of voter fraud Trump is talking about — voter impersonation — is extremely rare.” Rare is might be, but did it happen in 2016?

Major Malfunctions

FactCheck.org forgot (somehow) to mention headlines like this: “Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election.” The main discovery: “Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books.”

How many irregular votes were counted is unknown because of obscure recount rules in Michigan, but it is clearly non-zero. Even with these problems, a recent state audit said there “is no evidence of voter fraud surrounding the presidential election in Detroit.” It was admitted, however, that “87 of the 490 [Wayne County] precinct voting machines malfunctioned”, and that the poll workers were generally old and “tired.”

FactCheck.org also missed a case in Los Angeles where the County Registrar Dean Logan was presented with “more than 80 ballots for Tuesday’s [presidential] election filled out with names and the same address.” Logan has a history with difficult elections, such as in Washington State in 2000:

The Seattle Times documented 129 felons illegally voting in that election; National Review reported nearly 350 provisional ballots were counted without being verified; and The Wall Street Journal noted some 55,000 optical-scan ballots were “enhanced” so the voters’ supposed “intent” could be determined.

There are many other (easy-to-discover yet oddly ignored) instances like these, which proves one thing: that fraudulent or improper votes have been cast in past presidential elections, and that therefore it is rational to conclude fraudulent or improper votes have been cast in this most recent presidential election. The question then becomes how many votes are illicit.

Kinds of Bad Votes

Before investigating a contentious academic study of electoral fraud from non-citizen voting, it helps to list the main sources of fraudulent or improper votes in Presidential elections:

• Legal non-citizens; i.e. those who are here legally who are ineligible to vote but do anyway
• Law-breaking non-citizens; i.e. those who have broken laws to come here and are not in the formal immigration pipeline and who vote illegally
• The dead, including legal and illegal (see below)
• The fictional; i.e. names which are entirely made up
• The multiple; i.e. citizens who vote more than once
• Felons; i.e. citizens barred from voting

The dead requires clarification. Some citizens vote early and legally and then die before the official election date. Searches afterwards might turn some of these folks up as “dead voters.” The culprit is early voting and not fraud or ill intent. Of course, names of the deceased can also be, and have been, used by the unscrupulous.

Direction manipulation, by ballot box stuffing and, if it were possible, by hacking, would largely fit under the fictional category. The Chicago example of running the same ballot through the counting machine, and the example of malfunctioning machines fit here.

In order to come to total illicit votes, estimates are needed from each source.

The Dead and Felons

The dead whose names have been used improperly do not appear to account for a large number of bad votes. Many dead people are registered, as Pew reported, but their names have not been discovered to have been systematically misused. Still, there is substance (and here) to the many Chicago jokes like this: “My father voted Republican all his life. Since he died he votes Democrat.” No one therefore knows the best estimate of dead voters, but the Pew study does give an upper bound.

Laws vary by state whether felons can vote, with most states saying convicted felons are ineligible in some way. One estimate is that just over 6 million citizens are thus restricted. Ballotpedia cites a 2008 study which discovered “33,000 convicted felons who should not be eligible to vote” in Florida; another reports the “Wisconsin Government Accountability Board announced in September 2009 that it had identified up to 195 felons who may have illegally voted in the November 2008 presidential election.”

The total improper number of votes from felons is anybody’s guess, however. That 6 million is another upper bound, with the actual total surely far less than this.

Multiple and Fictional Votes

Pew again gives a clue about multiple voting by citizens; i.e., that 2.75 million people have multiple registrations. And then Alan Schulkin, Commissioner of the Board of Elections in New York City, was filmed by Project Veritas admitting people are “bused around” to vote multiple times, predominately in Democrat-heavy neighborhoods. In 2014, North Carolina identified “hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud,” many of which were likely multiple voters.

Fictional and incorrect names can be “on paper,” as when fraudulent registrations are entered, or virtual, as with ballot stuffing and hacking. For an on-paper example, recall the infamous Acorn voter registration drives in which the group turned in “‘massive numbers’ of duplicate registration cards,” cards for fictional characters and children and others with forged signatures. How many of these faked registrations turned into real votes nobody appears to know.

Ballotpedia quotes from a National Review article in which “undercover agents with New York City Department of Investigations ‘showed up at 63 polling places [in the fall of 2013] and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials … in 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote.'” Other examples exist.

Ballot Stuffing and Hacking

The Chicago example suffices for a ballot-stuffing example, though many say newer voting machines make the practice difficult. Yet computerized machines open the possibility of hacking. The Detroit example with more votes than voters also falls into this category, regardless whether the intent was malicious or due to faulty equipment.

Hacking is more mysterious. A security researcher demonstrated to Forbes the ease which some machines can be tampered with. Others agree. There were claims from some that machines in Texas changed votes from Trump to Hillary, though some of these curious changes could be put down to voter error. But the same mysterious switches from Trump to Hillary were reported in Pennsylvania and other places, too.

“I went back, pressed Trump again. Three times I did this, so then I called one of the women that were working the polls over. And she said you must be doing it wrong. She did it three times and it defaulted to Hillary every time,” Bobbie Lee Hawranko told KDKA.

The key line to the story: “Officials recalibrated the machines and said the issue has been resolved.” Here is a video of an instance of switching.

And, as all know, there were multiple reports that Russia hacked the election, but here it is generally meant that “entities” in Russia provided the emails from the DNC and John Podesta, which is a different kind of thing.

As above, the conclusion is that nobody knows the size of the error or fraud from these categories, except to say that it is not zero. The direction of reports of vote switching is, of course, interesting.

Non-Citizen Voting

In 2014, Jesse Richman, Gulshan Chattha, and David Earnest published “Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?” in the journal Electoral Studies. Their study relied on data provided by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), which is an on-going Internet survey.

The CCES includes a question asking whether the respondent is a US citizen, and others asking whether the respondent voted and for whom. Some respondents who said they were non-citizens also said they voted, which of course is illegal. In the 2008 election, Richman and Earnest calculated that “more than 80 percent” of non-citizens who illegally vote did so for Obama. So pronounced was the Democrat tilt, “we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.”

If extrapolated to 2016, these findings support Mr. Trump’s claim. But Richman’s paper was not well received by Democrats and the mainstream press. How accurate are Richman’s findings?

Not so accurate, say Stephen Ansolabehere, Samantha Luks, and Brian Schaffner, who penned the rebuttal paper “The perils of cherry picking low frequency events in large sample surveys” in Electoral Studies. The gist of this article is that if there is a known error rate in answering the question on citizenship, then, given the observed data, it is possible all the people who responded they were non-citizen voters were in error, and that, in fact, no non-citizens voted.

Yet there is no known error rate, only a guess, a guess which is disputed in turn by Richman (also here). Ansolabehere and the others also fail to consider what errors in answering other questions might mean. And both Richman and Ansolabehere fail to consider the biggest source of uncertainty, which is lying.

Some non-citizens vote because they honestly believe they are allowed to, but others vote knowing of the illegality. Both categories of votes are, however, illegal. A key point of dispute in the CCES is that some people who answered they were citizens in 2010 later said in 2012 that they were non-citizens (and vice versa). This supports the measurement error theory of Ansolabehere. But it also supports the theory that some might have been lying in 2010 and later changed their mind. Even stronger, there were a very large number of folks who said they were non-citizens consistently, and Ansolabehere’s approach would be to toss all these out, a move for which he does not have a solid justification.

How many who were non-citizens who claimed to be citizens, i.e. how many lied, is not known by anybody. This was an Internet survey and people were tracked through time. It is unclear how much trust respondents had in the privacy of their data; plus, the motivation to lie about voting illegally is obvious enough.

Estimating Non-Citizen Votes

Many in the press, and even Ansolabehere, intimate Richman did not consider the effects of measurement error (of mistakenly answering the citizenship question), but this is simply false. In the original paper, Richman gathered as much evidence as they could to support their claim of non-citizen voting. Most of this evidence was indirect, as in comparing demographic and other characteristics of non-citizen voters and non-citizen non-voters. But, really, this is all that can be done short of tracking down the original respondents and investigating (not questioning) them individually.

Supposing Richman is correct, his estimate of some 834,000 votes cast illegally in 2016, and most of these for Hillary, is too precise. That number has substantial uncertainty, even accepting Richman’s analysis. And then we have to add the uncertainty due to the survey itself: how were people gathered, what biases it has, how many lied, and so forth. And even if we could do all that, the result is not observational proof of the number of illegal non-citizen votes. It will be just the number (or a range, really) from some statistical model, which would be disputed until Kingdom come. Richman himself agrees more would be needed.

Lastly, another difficulty is that the CCES data does not distinguish between legal non-citizens and those who broke the law to come here. Since the CCES was an Internet survey, and thus would require access to some kind of (expensive) device, it may be that it is biased toward legal non-citizens. Folks who break the law to come here to work washing dishes or picking crops aren’t, one surmises, as likely to participate in surveys. How likely this latter group is to vote (illegally and encouraged or bused by men like Schulkin mentioned) is unknown.

Final Numbers

It is disappointing, but the answer at this date is that there is no answer, no precise answer. There is more than sufficient evidence to confirm that some illegal votes were counted, however. Much of this evidence is circumstantial, but it is also substantial.

There were about 130 million votes cast in 2016. In order for Trump to have won the popular vote, about 2% of these would have to be fraudulent in Hillary’s favor. Given the possibilities listed above, it is not impossible that this was so, but the low bar for fraud is also not proof that it happened.

We should therefore cheer Mr. Trump’s call for a thorough investigation, but we must acknowledge his estimate of illicit votes was seat-of-the-pants — which doesn’t mean wrong. A serious investigation is the only way to know.

[Herman Ball]

I HAVE worked the polls at several elections. You can investigate,I mean truly investigate and you would find many illegals have voter registration cards simply because to get one anyone wanting one can easily get it.
I recently talked with a friend that registers folks and can assure you it is not hard to get one almost legally other than lying with your signature. ANYONE that thinks a terrorist will tell the truth is an idiot.
I will bet that most illegal votes are even absentee.

[Herman Ball]

I HAVE worked the polls at several elections. You can investigate,I mean truly investigate and you would find many illegals have voter registration cards simply because to get one anyone wanting one can easily get it.
I recently talked with a friend that registers folks and can assure you it is not hard to get one almost legally other than lying with your signature. ANYONE that thinks a terrorist will tell the truth is an idiot.
I will bet that most illegal votes are even absentee.

[Graybeard58]

The article is wrong (fake news?)

Convicted felons in almost all states can vote after doing their time plus parole. Incarcerated felons in Vermont and Maine are allowed to vote from their cells.

[jazminerose]

Anyone who believes voter fraud is not an issue is an idiot. I grew up in Mayor Daley’s Chicago—I speak with authority on this topic!

Then I moved to SoCal where I received my education in illegal alienism. They vote in droves. Just investigate LA County alone and you’ll find a good chunk of Trump’s illegal alien votes. Do the same for Nevada.

Then there’s James O’Keefe’s NYC election official’s video. That one speaks for itself. He describes clearly the process by which people are bussed to multiple precincts to vote.

Trump is absolute right to in investigate. Republican wimps have been putting up with this crap for much too long.

[Tucker39]

And the majority of the 33% are ambulance chaser-type lawyers.

[Revolutionary]

It used to be that about 3% of the vote was democrat voter fraud. Republicans just accepted this as the cost of doing business so they did not diminish the public’s perception of free and fair elections. However, along came Obama and the percentage jumped to approximately 8% and then 10% in 2012. These are an estimate based on some math and that a large enough population sample would be relatively consistent. I believe that Hillary had about 10%, but I have not done the numbers for 2016. It might have been larger, but very unlikely that it would be lower. They have no problem whatsoever with cheating to win. The Trump administration needs to be extremely thorough, the money will be worth it. Start with Minnesota as it could flip to Trump in “hindsight”. Do Michigan and Pennsylvania next to strengthen the message. It is the blue cities that will bare the most fruit. Follow that up with Virginia. And then every state in the union as well as territories.
Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute...........

[Liz]

Yoo, hoo, La Raza Luis....are you there?

Let's take a quick trip down memory lane: At the La Raza conference in Cali (predated 2014 midterms)---Cong Luis Gutierrez (Dimwit-Ill) vengefully threatened Republicans---intimating hate-filled latinos would make sure they never win another presidency.

(waiting for hysterical laugher to die down)

La Raza President, and chief America hater, Janet Murguia, told attendees that it sickened her to hear Americans chanting "USA." She accused Murietta, Cali protesters against border-jumpers of having "cloaked their hatred in patriotism" by shouting "'USA! USA!' again and again."

"It made me angry," she said. "In fact, I was outraged."

Murguia demanded amnesty and said the road to the White House for Republicans goes through the Latino community and La Raza. She also said Republicans who want to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will not get Hispanic votes.

(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)

====================================================

Going into 2014 midterms, taking cues from their Central American handlers, organized latino pressure groups were heaping scorn upon those opposed to amnesty---assorted latino pressure groups threatened Republicans with extinction, they rallied around Democrats---saying "the latino vote was going to destroy Republicans."

REALITY CHECK--AMNESTY-SUCKING DEMOCRATS DROWNED IN A SEA OF RED ---2014 MIDTERM results evidenced not a single state, local or political entity claiming victory w/ latino votes.

AMNESTY-LOVING DEMOCRATS DROWN IN A SEA OF RED

Midterm Map courtesy of http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/here-s-what-a-republican-takeover-looks-likes-20141105

Undecided races at time of publication also went Republican.

2014 was a tsunami that submerged AMNESTY-SUCKING DEMOCRATS in waves of defeat. Democrats who ran on amnesty were soundly defeated.

Fox's Britt Hume said the latino vote was not even a factor. Republicans won historic one-for-the-books elections---from sea to shining sea.

Then came Trump and the 2016 solid anti-illegals election results.

I guess La Raza Luis is drowning his sorrows over the Trump win in tequila shots.

[Liz]

Trump’s DOJ needs to investigate this as possible voter fraud:

ITEM-—Journalists Dined at Top Clinton Staffers Homes
Days Before Hillary’s announcement of her candidacy
Wikileaks via Breitbart ^ | October 17 2016 | Ezra Dulis / FR Posted by grey_whiskers

ITEM..... Several top journalists and TV news anchors RSVPed “yes” to attend a private, off-the-record gathering at the New York home of Joel Benenson, the chief campaign strategist for Hillary Clinton, two days before she announced her candidacy in 2015, according to emails Wikileaks published from John Podesta’s accounts.

ITEM-—The guest list for an earlier event at the home of John Podesta was limited to reporters who were expected to cover Clinton on the campaign trail. —snip—

---

ITEM-—Wikileaks revealed earlier that late night talk host Stephen Colbert, and his team at Comedy Central, were making TV episodes at the request or order of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) back in April of 2013.

So, viewers thought they were vote-smart because they’re informed by a comedian, yet same said comedian was doing Hillary’s bidding the whole time.

ITEM——I hope talk hosts Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher, Seth Myers, Trevor Noah and Conan O’Brien have their lawyers on retainer and speed dial.

ITEM....because if the Trump Administration uncovers that the DNC and the Clintons were directly working with any member of media and their writing staff during the 2016 Presidential election, they could be charged with violating Federal election laws.

[Liz]

CAUGHT ON TAPE-—Nov 5, 2016-—Obama encourages illegal aliens to vote without fear of being deported

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfgEvgVC6Qs

[Liz]

NAACP leader: We will 'resist' Trump's voter fraud investigation
cnn ^ | 1-26-2017 | Christina Manduley / FR posted by tcrlaf

The head of the NAACP warned Thursday that his group will "resist" if President Donald Trump goes forward with his "major investigation" into voter fraud. The President claims without providing evidence that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 US election, although this belief has been widely debunked. (Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

============================================

FOLLOW THE MONEY---Obama provided tons of money to fix the presidential election; a voter fraud campaign they hoped might alter the course of the elections not to mention the future of the United States.

Obama and Congressional Democrats----with a huge assist from then-AG Eric Holder----gaven NeighborWorks America (formerly ACORN) and La Raza a huge funding source of tax dollars (to achieve Obama's dream of a permanent Democrat majority?).

<><> Obama/Holder/Dems extorted banks via DOJ litigation/bank settlements----into paying off these nefarious organizations.

DOJ went after CitiCorp and ordered them to pay $50 million to La Raza and NeighborWorks America as part of the settlement.

Another clause in the agreement makes it possible for La Raza and NeighborWorks America to rake in even larger amounts of money.

Of the remaining money the banks needed to pay in settlements, the banks were able to contribute additional money to La Raza and NeighborWorks America. For every dollar they contribute, it reduces their debt to the government by 2 dollars. That’s some mighty powerful incentive to give generously.

==================================================

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling have questioned why this money was sent to the ACORN clone and the blood-thirsty LaRaza----rather than to the alleged victims of the bank’s crime. The administration of course declined to answer.

Here's part of the Congressmen's letter to Holder: “It seems that the alleged victims are not the primary beneficiaries of these multi-billion dollar settlements. Instead, the terms in the Justice Department’s two latest settlements look less like consumer relief and more like a scheme to funnel money to politically favored special interest groups.”

“This makes donations to activist groups far more attractive to banks than providing direct relief to injured consumers. As a result, the settlements appear to serve as a vehicle for funding activist groups rather than as a means of securing relief for consumers actually harmed.”

=======================================

AND THIS

Obama bullied bank to pay racial settlement without proof: report
NY Post ^ | 2/7/2016 | Paul Sperry / FR Posted by DCdude

Newly uncovered internal memos reveal the Obama administration knowingly exaggerated charges of racial discrimination in probes of Ally Bank and other defendants in the $900 billion car-lending business as part of a racial justice campaign that's looking more like a massive government extortion and shakedown operation.

Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has reached more than $220 million in settlements with several auto lenders since the agency launched its anti- discrimination crusade against the industry in 2013. Several other banks are under active investigation. That's despite the fact that the CFPB had no actual complaints of racial discrimination--- it was all just based on half-baked statistics.

A 23-page internal report detailing CFPB's strategy for going after lenders shows why these companies are forking over millions of dollars in restitution and fines to the government despite denying any wrongdoing.

CFPB applied the screws to Ally, saying it had statistical evidence showing its participating dealers were œmarking up loan prices for blacks and Hispanics vs. whites (by an average of $3 a month).

Ally fought back, insisting non-discriminatory factors, such as credit history, down payments, trade-ins, promotions and rate- shopping, explained differences in loan pricing. After conducting a preliminary regression analysis, the bank found these factors alone accounted for at least 70 percent of the “racial disparities” the government was claiming.

CFPB admits in the memo that it never considered these or other legitimate business aspects of the car deals it investigated.

Also in its initial rebuttal, Ally complained CFPB's entire case was based on disparate impact statistics, not actual complaints by consumers, and that those estimates relied on guesswork about the race of the borrowers. (The auto industry does not report borrower race, so CFPB tried to ID race by last name and ZIP code, so-called proxy method that is wildly inaccurate.)

[Liz]

KILL MOTOR VOTER FRAUD: In Washington State to get the vote all you need to do is "complete a transaction" at any office...this means taking a number to ask for a brochure qualifies at any DMV office. Take a number, ask for a brochure......et voila.....you get to vote.

===========================

MOTOR VOTER SIGNING Everything conman Clinton did in office needs to be reexamined. Bill Clinton signs motor voter bill of 1993.

That's the bill's pushers Alinsky radicals, Cloward and Piven, looking over his shoulder.

[Liz]

Neil Cavuto stunned as Obama prods illegals to VOTE on national TV: (Flashback)
Biz PacReview ^ | 11/06/2016 | staff / FR Posted by Kid Shelleen

In a jaw-dropping move, lame duck Barack appeared to tell illegal aliens they can vote, citing the “sanctity of the vote.” Oh really?? What about the sanctity of citizenship? Or the sanctity of laws? Obama made the bizarre declaration that it’s okay to break the law by voting in a U.S. election even if you’re in the country illegally, Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto said. Here’s the exact question Obama was asked by actress Gina Rodriguez in a pre-election interview last week: (Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...

[spintreebob]

The Dan Webb referred to likes to be quoted and likes publicity. He, Skinner and Thompson in the Nixon-Ford US Atty regime had many vote fraud cases handed to them by me, by my friends, and by those I didnt know. The same cases were handed to Republican States Atty Bernard Carey. They did nothing. Vote fraud cases have been handed on silver platters to Republican States Attys in DuPage and Kane County.

Now here in GA no Republican, not the pro-Trump or pro-Cruz or pro-Jeb Republicans want to know the truth of Republican Brian Kemp’s voter software. Gary Cooley is made a scapegoat and everyone is happy to move on.

The author does have a semblance of a good methodology. However, he seems to have an academic approach where mine is based on experience. First of all, most vote fraud is in local election races where it is much easier to commit and make a difference.

The Aldemanic race between JesseJackson-Push and Obama-Beavers-Stroger-Partee has by far the highest rate of vote fraud of any race I have seen. That is because both sides went full throttle. To prosecute, it is a mistake to focus on presidential races. The goal should be to convict some actual felons.

Second, in all 7 categories listed, the focus is the same.

Legal non-citizens: Patronage employees and contractors vote on behalf of non-citizens far more than non-citizens vote.

Law-breaking non-citizens: Patronage vote on behalf of them far more than they themselves vote.

The dead: Wow, this is a stumper.

names entirely made up: Most common is the person who registers with first name, then with middle name, with maiden name and mairried name and nick name, etc. Mostly people paid to do this (patronage) do this. But on rare occasions a sophmore who acts 13 does it.

citizens who vote more than once: The author misquotes Pew:
2.75 million people have multiple registrations. No 2.75 million people are registered in more than one state. There are 5 times more people who move in the same state and are registered to vote multiple places. The classic example is the college student who registers at home, and at college. But we live in a mobile society.

Furthermore our legal system/bureaucracy makes it very risky for an election official to clean up the voter rolls. They will be facing all kinds of law suits, including from those who cry vote fraud.

Felons: Most felons are honest (or apathetic) and do not vote. Society wants to believe in redemption. Voting is the act of a responsible citizen. Society sees felons trying to act responsibly as a good thing. But here again, many times it is the unconvicted felon who votes on behalf of the convicted felon. But of all these categories, this category might have the highest percentage of people voting on their own.

The author misses major parts of the vote count game, which is separate from the vote casting game. There are two common sources of vote count fraud. In the Nov 2016 election, and in many elections, voters truly want to vote none-of-the-above. They intentionally undervote and vote for nobody for a certain race. Or they vote 3rd party in protest. The most common form of vote count fraud is to count the undervotes and 3rd party votes for the side that controls the vote counting, often at a central facility and not in the precinct.

Thus it is in undervote and 3rd party that the biggest shift occurs. These voters lack the infrastructure to do anything about it. In 1998 I voted in the LP primary in IL. I checked the results voter by voter in both Democrat and Republican Counties. Active LP members were recorded as voting in the primary of the party that controlled that county... overwhelmingly. I could not find a single LP member in DuPage county who was credited with voting in the LP primary. I phone some of them and they insisted that they did vote in the LP primary, which knowing them, I believe.