Political statistics

Very interesting. It has long been a staple belief in some conservative circles that Democrats manipulate vote counting at the margin. This attitude is reflected in the adage "You can't just win. You have to beat them by the margin of fraud." It has also been assumed that Democrats' objection to voter ID and other efforts to shore up the integrity of the voting system were motivated by Democrats' desire to maintain some flexibility for winning narrow contests. I have always assumed that while this is not an unreasonable argument, it was likely simply a function of observer bias. That Republicans see the close races they lose but don't focus on the close races the Democrats lose.

The accusation took on a little more substance in the past ten years. I think it was a governor's race out in Oregon or Washington where the Republican won by a narrow margin. After three recounts, he had lost. Something similar happened with Al Franken up in Minnesota. Still, it seemed reasonable that it might simply be sour grapes.

Or not, as it now emerges.

From Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections? by Dan McLaughlin.

To get a sense of the answer, I took a look at all the statewide Senate and governor’s races from 1998 through 2013 (thanks to Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics for a big assist with the data) as well as all the statewide results in the presidential elections during that period. Let’s begin with the very closest races, those decided by less than one percentage point. There have been 27 such races since 1998, and Democrats have won 20 out of 27

You would expect the outcomes to be 50:50 but they are 74:26 in favor of the Democrats. So maybe there is an issue.

There are all sorts of rationals you can come up with to explain such a disparate impact but they all seem fairly improbable or anemic. And maybe it is still just a numerical quirk. It is a small population of data points. What would happen if you added in contested House seats, would you get the same results?

UPDATE: Well, asked and answered. From the Washington Post a few days after I posted this: Could non-citizens decide the November election? by Jesse Richman and David Earnest. Their evidence is by no means conclusive but is strongly indicative that there is material voter fraud and that it is skews very strongly in favor of Democrats.

The upshot is that 1) there is strong evidence that tight races where a few votes one way or another can mean the difference between winning and losing, break disproportionately towards Democrats and 2) there is suggestive evidence that that skewing is facilitated by voter fraud, at least in part by non-citizens voting. That evidence is consistent with the supposition that Democrat's objection to voter ID laws may be motivated as much by self-interest as it is by purported principle.