More detail on that 2014 voter fraud study

Well, in this post election season where recounts are dragging on and complaints about voting fraud are rife, it is perhaps pertinent to repost a couple of data points.

The first is from 2014, Political statistics and is the more compelling.

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.

The second post was more about the epistemic issues about knowing whether something is true versus declaring that something is true; Lies, opinions, probabilities and the 2016 election from 2017. Includes a long list of documented instances of fraud.

Then there is this study from 2014, mentioned in the posts above, Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections? by Jesse T.Richman, Gulshan A.Chatth, and David C.Earnest. From the Abstract.

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave 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.

Steve Hayward was able to get access to the full report which provided additional information.

The study estimates that as much as 15 percent of non-citizens living in the U.S. voted in 2008, but only 3 percent in 2010.

And there is a distinct skewing in illegal voting:

Click to enlarge.

Some details:

Based on survey samples of 32,000 voters in 2008 and 55,000 voters in 2010, the authors among other things find:

• It is likely though by no means certain that John McCain would have won North Carolina were it not for the votes for Obama cast by non-citizens.

• A similar analysis reveals that there was one House race and one Senate race during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles which were close enough for votes by non-citizens to potentially account for the entirety of the Democratic victor’s margin. As before this analysis merges Census estimates of the number of adult non-citizens by House district and State with FEC tabulations of final election results. In 2008 there were 22 House races and two Senate races in which the Democratic candidate’s winning margin was small enough that less than 100 percent turnout among non-citizens could account for Democratic victory, and in 2010 there were 24 such House districts and three Senate races.

• The MN 2008 Senate race is also the race where the smallest portion of non-citizen votes would have tipped the balance—participation by more than 0.65% of non-citizens in MN is sufficient to account for the entirety of Franken’s margin. Our best guess is that nearly ten times as many voted.

There are plenty of issues that raise concerns about the methodology of the study and just how far the observations can be extended.

My personal suspicion is that the biggest evidence that voter fraud is a real issue is the statistical variance reported in the first study and buttressed with the extreme reluctance by the Mandarin class, but especially urban Democrats, to tighten up voting integrity.

I suspect that voter fraud does occur, that occurs much more in some locations than others, and that it is influential at the margin of deeply contested races. I doubt it entails millions of fraudulent votes but it certainly includes tens of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands.

But we'll see eventually. The shenanigans currently on display in Georgia and Florida should raise the alarm among all citizens, regardless of party. Illegally destroyed votes, votes found in closets, including provisional votes which have not been validated - it is hanging chad territory on steroids and it does not look legitimate.