• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

harvard study claims non citizens vote.

Steve

Well-known member
Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

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.
Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

source..Washington post
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973
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.

maybe my math is wrong but... at the low estimate... 2.2% that would be about,... 2,772,000 .. 2.8 million is not far from 3 million,.. and with the vote hysteria we are now seeing is it a real stretch to believe that 3 million illegals voted against Trump?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Steve said:
maybe my math is wrong but... at the low estimate... 2.2% that would be about,... 2,772,000 .. 2.8 million is not far from 3 million,.. and with the vote hysteria we are now seeing is it a real stretch to believe that 3 million illegals voted against Trump?

Well obviously that's what he wants people to think.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Silver said:
Steve said:
maybe my math is wrong but... at the low estimate... 2.2% that would be about,... 2,772,000 .. 2.8 million is not far from 3 million,.. and with the vote hysteria we are now seeing is it a real stretch to believe that 3 million illegals voted against Trump?

Well obviously that's what he wants people to think.

here is what a Harvard study Thinks..
Harvard Study: Illegal Alien Voter Fraud Decides Elections

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.

Pew Research determined at the time there were 95,000 illegal aliens in Minnesota. If 75% are over 18 years old that means there are 71,250 voting age illegal aliens. On average that translates into 9,975 illegally registered to vote (14% see fourth paragraph), so in 2008 when Franken ran he would receive about 4,417 extra illegal votes (using conservative figure that 80% go to Democrats). His Republican opponent would have received about 833 extra illegal votes, which means a net gain for Franken of 3,534. That means Franken lost the election by 3,222 votes and was never legally elected a US Senator.

Which means many "citizens" votes didn't matter.. stealing an election hurts us all...
 

Silver

Well-known member
Steve said:
Silver said:
Steve said:
maybe my math is wrong but... at the low estimate... 2.2% that would be about,... 2,772,000 .. 2.8 million is not far from 3 million,.. and with the vote hysteria we are now seeing is it a real stretch to believe that 3 million illegals voted against Trump?

Well obviously that's what he wants people to think.

here is what a Harvard study Thinks..
Harvard Study: Illegal Alien Voter Fraud Decides Elections

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.

Pew Research determined at the time there were 95,000 illegal aliens in Minnesota. If 75% are over 18 years old that means there are 71,250 voting age illegal aliens. On average that translates into 9,975 illegally registered to vote (14% see fourth paragraph), so in 2008 when Franken ran he would receive about 4,417 extra illegal votes (using conservative figure that 80% go to Democrats). His Republican opponent would have received about 833 extra illegal votes, which means a net gain for Franken of 3,534. That means Franken lost the election by 3,222 votes and was never legally elected a US Senator.

Which means many "citizens" votes didn't matter.. stealing an election hurts us all...

Yes it does. It would be interesting to know what affect foreign interests have on the results as well.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Silver said:
Steve said:
\

Which means many "citizens" votes didn't matter.. stealing an election hurts us all...

Yes it does. It would be interesting to know what affect foreign interests have on the results as well.

I am sure it has some effect..

The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996,

a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties.

while exposing the truth may have influenced the election, it is not the first and doubtful it will be the last time foreign countries meddled.

Oh by the way.. Clinton normalized relations with China..

In the last year of his presidency, Bill Clinton called on Congress to help him change China’s normal trade relations status with the U.S. to permanent.

US imports from China more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2015, increasing the decline of US manufacturing jobs.

It has been years since the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton paved the way for China to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most all of the predictions from those pushing the deal at the time have proven to be wrong. Bill Clinton, the country's most ardent booster of opening trade with China, looks especially imprudent 10 years later. During a press conference on March 29, 2000, Clinton said that granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), which allowed China to gain entry into the WTO, would be a great deal for America. "We do nothing," Clinton said. "They have to lower tariffs. They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to put our own distributorships there. They allow us to put our own parts there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint manufacturing in China any more. This a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences."

It didn't quite work out that way. Since 2000, the trade deficit with China has surged by 173 percent, from $83 billion in 2000 to $227 billion in 2009. The United States has lost more than one-third of all its manufacturing jobs -- 5.6 million; U.S. wages have declined; the country has suffered a financial meltdown; it has spent $14 trillion on economic stimulus, only to experience the highest unemployment rates in generations and annual federal budget deficits of more than $1 trillion. These trends are not "likely to end," says Lighthizer.

Granting PNTR to China would "increase U.S. jobs and reduce our trade deficit," Clinton promised. There are fewer private sector jobs in May 2010 (107.6 million) than in May 2000 (110.7 million). The U.S. trade deficit in goods skyrocketed to more than $800 billion in 2008, and is presently increasing at a rate that is considered to be unsustainable.

so yes, foreign influence should be investigated and acted on accordingly by congress and the president,.. that action should not be selling out the US for more campaign or foundation money..
 

Tam

Well-known member
You have to laugh at what is going on since the election. The Dems like Lewis are saying Trump is an illegitimate President due to outside influence. Even after the recounts that showed to many votes for Hillary in Detroit they are still claiming he is illegitimate.

But now that Trump wants an investigation into the rumours of voter fraud the Dems are yelling he is nuts there is no voter fraud.

They can't have it both ways either Trump is the legally elected President or there was something going on with the ballot count that everyone claims can't be rigged.

So either they believe the vote count was not rigged and they are lying about Trump being an Illegitimate President to whip up their base so they will protest Trump's every move OR they are really scares the investigation might just prove there was voter fraud in more cities than just Detroit FOR HILLARY.

I think the more the Left resist the investigation the more Trump should push for it to prove to the left that he is LEGALLY the President no matter what the likes of Lewis and the rest of the Liberal LOONS spew for the benefit of HILLARY'S supporters.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Silver said:
Yes it does. It would be interesting to know what affect foreign interests have on the results as well.


It would be interesting to see what influence the millions Hillary took from countries that kill women and gays had on her campaign.

It would also be interesting to see what Sec. of State Hillary's meddling in Putin's election in Russia had on his actions in the US election. Or did you forget She even admitted Putin had it out for her due to her meddling in his election?

Funny how the Dems think it is fine to meddled in foreign elections like Russia's and Israel's but when they do a like meddling of their own to make sure the US voters really know who they are voting for, the Dems are ready to start WW3. If Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta HILLARY HAD IT COMING AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP. Just think of it as PAY BACK for her own actions.

And Hillary claiming to be a women's advocate is a friggin joke considering who she took money from to fund her billion dollar LOSING campaign. That woman couldn't care less about others, it is all about her pocket book or she would not have taken Foundation donations and used them for her daughter's million dollar wedding while Haiti children suffered. And if the Dems are so damn sure about Russia being the horrid enemy then why was Hillary allowed to sell 20% of US uranium to them while her sexual predator Ex President Hubby took hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to speak in RUSSIA? What secrets could the Russia's be holding on Clinton and Obama that they don't want Trump to even think about talking to them? Just how FLEXIBLE was Obama with Putin after the 2012 election?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Ok, just so we are clear, It is okay for a foreign countries to interfere in your elections if they agree with your political view. Is that correct?
And only Dems meddle in foreign elections? I was not aware.

Wow, amazing what one can learn through vitriol.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Silver said:
Ok, just so we are clear, It is okay for a foreign countries to interfere in your elections if they agree with your political view. Is that correct?
And only Dems meddle in foreign elections? I was not aware.

Wow, amazing what one can learn through vitriol.

for me the answer is NO,

but lets make this clear,.. Hillery's own actions had more to do with her loss,

If not for
Hillery meddling in Russia's election.. they would not have reciprocated.

if not for
Hillery peddling influence the countries would not have given her truck loads of money..

if not for
Hillery sending out e-mails would people think (or know) she was a corrupt criminal?


Had our free unbiased press done their job and exposed this we would not need to rely on other countries to expose the left's actions.

so let US be CLEAR,.. Russia's influence, meddling or interference had NO effect on the election.. it was ALL Hillery's and the liberals she surrounded herself with own actions that lost it for her..

exposing the truth is not undue influence, meddling or interference.. it is just doing what a free unbiased press should have already done..
 

Silver

Well-known member
I don't disagree with you Steve, Hillary was her own worst enemy, and I am glad she is not your president. The problem I have is hearing people justify foreign meddling in an election as being deserved or alright because it happened to align with ones own political views.
It's wrong regardless of whether the foreign power agrees with your view or is against it. Period.
The last number of elections in your country have been extremely close, my opinion would be that it is incumbent on your system (as in any democracy) to do whatever it takes to ensure fair elections whether by ensuring legal voters are voting and voting once to ensuring foreign powers are not meddling.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
America is a Republic. At least that's what I was taught. :D

Regardless, voter fraud regardless of who it affects, must be stopped. I think Trump has some ideas for that.

I'm not a die-hard Trump fan but I've been amazed at what he as gotten done and he's not been detracted from his agenda.
I believe in giving credit when credit due; and he's due some.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
America is a Republic. At least that's what I was taught. :D

Regardless, voter fraud regardless of who it affects, must be stopped. I think Trump has some ideas for that.

I'm not a die-hard Trump fan but I've been amazed at what he as gotten done and he's not been detracted from his agenda.
I believe in giving credit when credit due; and he's due some.

I think your country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. So.... kum se, kum sa.
And yes, credit where credit is due. I believe I even made a special post in PB to do just that.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Yep. You know the terms far better than I. And I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I hope yours weren't ruffled! :D

Those whose feathers are easily ruffled should not venture into PB :lol:
I wouldn't come in here but Ranch Talk is soooo slow these days, and I like to argue. I'll pick any side just for the sake of the argument. Ask my wife and kids! :shock: :D
I find an argument makes me think, and that helps me discover more things I wouldn't have otherwise.
 

Tam

Well-known member
I never said it was OK just said that Hillary deserved it as she and the Dems thought nothing about meddling in foreign elections. If they do not want others to meddled in the US election then stay the hell out of foreign elections and let their people elect who they want not who the US decides is best for the US.

Do you think it was OK Obama was meddling in our last election.

True to form, President Obama cannot resist trying to exert some meaningful influence. Since he is apparently unable to do so in the Middle East, where it may actually help our nation, there are reports he is attempting to sway the Canadian vote.

But Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press has been documenting how Obama is planning the “fundamental transformation” of Canada by taking down Harper’s government and bringing to power a progressive majority assembled from Canada’s Liberal Party and New Democratic Party (NDP), an affiliate of the Socialist International.

In a dispatch earlier this year, McLeod provided the facts about the interference of Obama campaign operatives in the Canadian elections scheduled for October 19. “In Canada, Obama’s campaign team is guiding the election campaigns of both the Liberals and the NDP,” she wrote. She urged the Harper government to investigate.

She explained why Obama is targeting Canada: “To the U.S., Canada is the country next door, to Obama it’s home of the architects of the maligned Keystone XL Pipeline and home to the world’s Number One elected defender of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Indeed, for the last seven years, Harper has not only been supporting Israel, but functioning as the leader of the Free World in the face of Obama’s deal-making with America’s enemies and adversaries. In 2014, at the summit of G20 nations, Harper famously told Russian President Putin that he needs “to get out of Ukraine.” Putin replied with a lie, saying the Russians weren’t in Ukraine.

The last time Team Obama attempted to direct an election result, it went spectacularly well . . . for Bibi Netanyahu.

The Dems look at their meddling as a right to better the world well Russia might have thought the same if they indeed were the ones that hacked the DNC and Podesta to stop Crooked Hillary from taking an office she had no right to have. I don't see how the FBI allowed her to run for President as 100% of the Agents that were investigating her recommended her security clearance be pulled. How do you sit as President of the US when you have no Security Clearance due to your mishandling of Classified Information as Sec of State?

Personally I still do not believe it was Russia that released the TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY since Obama's intel officials were a bunch of proven liars. They had no problem rewriting intel reports to match their corrupt leader OBAMA's political rhetoric. I hope that all their false so called "EVIDENCE" is proven to be lies and they are all charges for lying to Congress. There are too many stories out there claiming it to be an INSIDE job due to Hillary's and the DNC robbing Bernie of any fair chance to be the nominee. She got only half of what she deserved when she lost, the other half will be served up when they slam the prison door on her butt.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Silver said:
Faster horses said:
Yep. You know the terms far better than I. And I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I hope yours weren't ruffled! :D

Those whose feathers are easily ruffled should not venture into PB :lol:
I wouldn't come in here but Ranch Talk is soooo slow these days, and I like to argue. I'll pick any side just for the sake of the argument. Ask my wife and kids! :shock: :D
I find an argument makes me think, and that helps me discover more things I wouldn't have otherwise.
That explains defending Blue Tractors. :lol:
 
Top