This is going around the conservo-sphere, anyone want to take a crack at it?

[dystopian]

Usually it involves providing identification of some sort (voter ID laws).

I was actually surprised to find that the US rules for identifying its voters are something of a mess. It seems our system is much more sensible. Every municipality maintains a registry of eligible voters, several weeks before an election every voter receives a polling notification. When we vote, we have to present both the notification and a photo ID (which may be expired by a few years).

I have to admit though, the Swiss system is insane enough that it sounds awesome:

"Men, however, are still allowed to present a bayonet – a sword that was generally passed down from generation to generation – which served as the only form of voting identification up until 1991"

 

[NobleSavage]

Unless you ask them how they voted. Which could be done in a study or by looking at the party databases.

I have been asked how I voted and I deliberately lied. Sorry, but it is not possible. There is no way to verify an individual's response.

When I was in HS I lied on a drug survey. I guess all surveys are useless. The article in question is talking about enough illegal votes to change an outcome. I don't have a PhD in a social science, but that does seem like something that could be determined. At least with some kind of confidence interval. So back to my question. What is wrong with this study? They can look at voter rolls and determine if someone registered illegally (ie. illegal votes could change an election). As to how they voted, is it just too small of a sample size? A sample size of 1000 has a margin of error of ~3% and 200 has ~7% In contested areas you could get at least 50% sample size just from the party databases. (i.e. illegal votes did determine an election.) So does this margin of error over shadow what they are claiming? I've got half a mind to pay the stupid $10 for the article just to try and figure it out.

 

[SimpleDon]

Could non-citizens decide the November election?


...

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.

It's in the Washington Post so I'm suspect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ld-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

Ironically the study came to the conclusion that the Republicans' favorite voter suppression method, voter ID laws, would have no effect to prevent this.

Most countries allow permanent residents to vote. It is that "no taxation without representation" thing.

Once again, I have to point out that the largest recent development that allows foreign citizens to impact our elections to the greatest degree isn't these handful of tax paying permanent residents. It is the Citizens United corporations are people too nonsense. It allows foreign CEOs to commit unlimited amounts to support candidates of their choice.

 

[SimpleDon]

Insufficient hyperbole in my previous post.

It is the Citizens United "corporations are people too," ”money is free speech" nonsense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Usually it involves providing identification of some sort (voter ID laws).

I was actually surprised to find that the US rules for identifying its voters are something of a mess. It seems our system is much more sensible. Every municipality maintains a registry of eligible voters, several weeks before an election every voter receives a polling notification. When we vote, we have to present both the notification and a photo ID (which may be expired by a few years).

When we have our sample ballot (our version of your polling notification--it not only tells us where our polling place is, but where all the early voting places are and lists every candidate on the ballot, as well as the full wording of any measures on the ballot) we are never asked for ID. They consider it good enough and it goes a bit faster than if we present our IDs. The sample ballots are not required, though, I have voted in a couple of primaries without it.

 

[dystopian]

(our version of your polling notification--it not only tells us where our polling place is, but where all the early voting places are and lists every candidate on the ballot, as well as the full wording of any measures on the ballot)

Ours list the personal information of the voter, voter serial number, information on the election in question, and the nearest voting station. Legally speaking, every eligible voter can only vote in the municipality they're registered in; however, the polling notification can be turned into a voter pass which allows the holder to vote in any voting station in the country. There's also an option on the polling notification to give another individual the right to deliver the vote on their behalf.

Upon voting, you first hand over your polling notification to the voting station's chairman/woman. It is then determined if you are voting in the correct district. After that, the voter serial number is checked by someone else to see if it matches the name in the voter registry in order to prevent fraud. The chairman then further verifies your identity by having you provide a photo ID that is less than 5 years expired: either a passport, driver's license, or ID card.

we are never asked for ID. They consider it good enough and it goes a bit faster than if we present our IDs.

Well, that's dumb.

 

[NobleSavage]

Most countries allow permanent residents to vote. It is that "no taxation without representation" thing.

Permanent residents in the US can only vote in local and state elections.

Once again, I have to point out that the largest recent development that allows foreign citizens to impact our elections to the greatest degree isn't these handful of tax paying permanent residents. It is the Citizens United corporations are people too nonsense. It allows foreign CEOs to commit unlimited amounts to support candidates of their choice.

Once again, that is not the issue here. I just want to talk about the study. Their conclusion is, "participation [of illegal voters] has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections."

 

[laughing dog]

I have been asked how I voted and I deliberately lied. Sorry, but it is not possible. There is no way to verify an individual's response.

When I was in HS I lied on a drug survey. I guess all surveys are useless.

If the goal of the survey is to link specific respondents to specific true responses that cannot be verified, then those surveys are useless. IF they be used to gauge responses over a sample or population, then maybe not.

The article in question is talking about enough illegal votes to change an outcome. I don't have a PhD in a social science, but that does seem like something that could be determined. At least with some kind of confidence interval. So back to my question. What is wrong with this study? They can look at voter rolls and determine if someone registered illegally (ie. illegal votes could change an election). As to how they voted, is it just too small of a sample size? A sample size of 1000 has a margin of error of ~3% and 200 has ~7% In contested areas you could get at least 50% sample size just from the party databases. (i.e. illegal votes did determine an election.) So does this margin of error over shadow what they are claiming? I've got half a mind to pay the stupid $10 for the article just to try and figure it out.

It is pretty much basic arithmetic to determine how many votes (whether from voters or non-voters) could sway an election. But that is pure conjecture as to the likelihood of it occurring. Just like it is possible that an invasion from outer space could sway the election or that one of the candidates admits he is pedophile.

 

[Duke Leto]

Couldn't resist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ours list the personal information of the voter, voter serial number, information on the election in question, and the nearest voting station. Legally speaking, every eligible voter can only vote in the municipality they're registered in; however, the polling notification can be turned into a voter pass which allows the holder to vote in any voting station in the country. There's also an option on the polling notification to give another individual the right to deliver the vote on their behalf.

Upon voting, you first hand over your polling notification to the voting station's chairman/woman. It is then determined if you are voting in the correct district. After that, the voter serial number is checked by someone else to see if it matches the name in the voter registry in order to prevent fraud. The chairman then further verifies your identity by having you provide a photo ID that is less than 5 years expired: either a passport, driver's license, or ID card.

Here you have to vote in your polling station if you vote on election day. In early voting you can vote anywhere in the county, though. (This may vary from area to area, I've only lived in one area while we had early voting.)

Here they use the booklet to look up who you are and that you haven't voted yet. You sign the log saying you're voting and are given a card that matches your voting district. You insert that in the machine and vote. Presumably on election day the cards are all the same but I haven't voted on election day since they put in the machines.

we are never asked for ID. They consider it good enough and it goes a bit faster than if we present our IDs.

Well, that's dumb.

What's the problem? Unless you stole a book from somebody you're not going to have one that isn't yours.

 

[Rhea]

Ours you sign your name when you register. Then the book of signatures is in the polling place and you sign again next to, but upside down from, your previous signature. The poll worker compares and sends you on to the booth (after asking you about your mother and your cows)

 

[NobleSavage]

This seems really simple. In Colorado there is a close Senate race between Mark Udall and Corey Gardner. Approximately 1.7 Million people will vote. We can cross check registered voters with citizenship and determine how many non-citizens voted. The right is calming that number is close to 14%. Ok, say we only find 1%, that is still 17,000 non-citizen votes. A huge pile for a survey. We get 1000 respondents and that give us a 3% margin of error. It wouldn't be rocket science to figure out if illegal votes decided the election.

 

[Valjean]

The voter fraud scare is bogus. It's a Republican voter suppression tactic. The party floods the media with so many 'reports' and 'studies' the general public is convinced there must be something to it. Investigations, however, almost always reveal the reports to be unfounded.
Just google "US voter fraud studies" or some such and you'll see it's mostly voter suppression propaganda.

 

[dystopian]

What's the problem? Unless you stole a book from somebody you're not going to have one that isn't yours.

It's dumb because A) it's trivially easy to steal one if you're so inclined, B) it's dumb because "it goes a bit faster" is never a good reason for not double-checking, and C) it's dumb because there's no real reason why it should be a problem to ask for photo ID. If photo ID's are so expensive that the poor can't afford them, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not foreigners are voting in your elections.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the problem? Unless you stole a book from somebody you're not going to have one that isn't yours.

It's dumb because A) it's trivially easy to steal one if you're so inclined, B) it's dumb because "it goes a bit faster" is never a good reason for not double-checking, and C) it's dumb because there's no real reason why it should be a problem to ask for photo ID. If photo ID's are so expensive that the poor can't afford them, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not foreigners are voting in your elections.

The problem isn't the cost of the ID per se. Rather, it's the cost/problems of obtaining the ID. Remember the thread some months ago about who had ID? SimpleDon doesn't--and explained why it would be quite a hassle for him to obtain it. He's an educated and apparently middle class person.

 

[laughing dog]

This seems really simple. In Colorado there is a close Senate race between Mark Udall and Corey Gardner. Approximately 1.7 Million people will vote. We can cross check registered voters with citizenship and determine how many non-citizens voted. The right is calming that number is close to 14%. Ok, say we only find 1%, that is still 17,000 non-citizen votes. A huge pile for a survey. We get 1000 respondents and that give us a 3% margin of error. It wouldn't be rocket science to figure out if illegal votes decided the election.

You have no way of verifying the respondents actual voting record, so applying statistical techniques to garbage input gives garbage output. Apparently that is harder to understand than rocket science.

 

[dystopian]

The problem isn't the cost of the ID per se. Rather, it's the cost/problems of obtaining the ID. Remember the thread some months ago about who had ID? SimpleDon doesn't--and explained why it would be quite a hassle for him to obtain it. He's an educated and apparently middle class person.

Any such hassle can't be more than minor at best. If you're not even willing to go through a minimum of effort to obtain a photo ID, then why should you be allowed to influence national policy?

 

[NobleSavage]

This seems really simple. In Colorado there is a close Senate race between Mark Udall and Corey Gardner. Approximately 1.7 Million people will vote. We can cross check registered voters with citizenship and determine how many non-citizens voted. The right is calming that number is close to 14%. Ok, say we only find 1%, that is still 17,000 non-citizen votes. A huge pile for a survey. We get 1000 respondents and that give us a 3% margin of error. It wouldn't be rocket science to figure out if illegal votes decided the election.

You have no way of verifying the respondents actual voting record, so applying statistical techniques to garbage input gives garbage output. Apparently that is harder to understand than rocket science.

There is no reason that the input must be garbage. The parties have great databases and they have professional statisticians cleaning them up and making very accurate decisions. Everything we need is in place. Someone just has to do it. I'm still not convinced the the study in the op is complete garbage.

 

[NobleSavage]

The problem isn't the cost of the ID per se. Rather, it's the cost/problems of obtaining the ID. Remember the thread some months ago about who had ID? SimpleDon doesn't--and explained why it would be quite a hassle for him to obtain it. He's an educated and apparently middle class person.

Any such hassle can't be more than minor at best. If you're not even willing to go through a minimum of effort to obtain a photo ID, then why should you be allowed to influence national policy?

Yes, I think the Democrats should quit wining and embrace voter ID. Mostly so the Republicans would shut up. If the Dems made helping people get ID as part of GOTV it would be money well spent. It would also benefit those without ID in a thousand other ways.

 

[ImGod]

Because all of the voter ID stuff is stuuuuupppppiiiiiidddd if you can vote by mail. They would have to get rid of voting by mail if they really wanted to enforce photo IDs.

I could fill out grandma's ballot and mail it in for her. Yet they won't do away with mail in because service members and business travelers mail in their ballots.