Possible California voter fraud

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Mike, Aug 9, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Mike

    Mike The Traveler Contributor

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    328
    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Location:
    OH
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
    Spaced Out Ace likes this.
  2. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,507
    Likes Received:
    480
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    more registered voters than citizens =/= more votes than citizens =/= evidence of voter fraud

    I thought that the reason this happens is because once you register to vote somewhere, you stay registered to vote there unless you go out of your way to tell them that you're leaving. I'm registered to vote in IL, but I never told that to anyone in IN, so I suppose I'm still registered to vote there as well?

    Is that not correct?

    I also think that if you move to a different state before you die that the state you used to live in never finds out that you're dead and you stay registered.
     
  3. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,966
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Nobody said "evidence."

    # of Registered Voters > # of eligible voters = possibility of voter fraud. Next step is to look into how many people actually voted.

    The basic process of investigation is to identify suspicious things, then try to find evidence. # of Registered Voters = 1.44 x # of eligible voters is certainly suspicious; if the report is accurate, someone should investigate. If no evidence of voter fraud is found, then we move along, because there was nothing to see there. If the investigation turns up some evidence of voter fraud, then the investigative team needs to put the evidence into a scenario to connect the evidence to the (at that point) alleged voter fraud. Next step after that is to hold a hearing or such to determine if that scenario is plausible enough to warrant corrective action.

    But for now, yeah, that's suspicious, and that's about all.
     
  4. Mike

    Mike The Traveler Contributor

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    328
    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Location:
    OH
    I found this kind of interesting.

    69.5% of registered voters did actually turn out to vote in the 2016 election in LA county.
    http://www.laalmanac.com/election/el02.php

    69.5% * 144% = 100.08% of eligible voters.

    Dictators can't even get that kind of participation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  5. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,966
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Before I get too excited, I just want to point out that LA county has a total population of 10.17 million. Does that mean that only 35% of the total population there is eligible to vote? I suppose that sounds feasible, but it is well below the national average.

    Residents: 10.17 M
    Registered voters: 5 103 353
    (Elligible voters, according to article: “the number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”)
    Votes: 3 554 115
    Votes for Clinton: 2 464 364
    Votes for Trump: 769 743

    Take the registered voters and divide by 144% = 3 543 995 (just under the number of votes cast, not over)
    How many total resident citizens are of voting age? Is it that number? Out of 10.17 million? That's a lot of resident aliens! Indeed, Los Angeles County houses more resident aliens than any other county in the USA, but estimates by the state department are around 1-1.5 million, so it doesn't explain this huge gap between 10.17 residents and 3.5 million adult citizens. That's because that number is incorrect...
     
    ElysianGuitars likes this.
  6. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,343
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Yeah, somehting's funky with your math, Mike.

    According to the site you linked, 3,511,115 votes were cast. According to the Wikipedia page on California registered voters by location, in 2013 Los Angles county has a population of 9,787,747, of which 49.7% are registered to vote. I'd love an actual total or a few more decimal points, but 9,787,747 x 0.497 = 4,864,510. 3,511,115 voters out of a total registered voter population of 4,864,510 is 72.2%, a little higher than the 69.5% you're citing, but a percentage point or two of population growth in that three year window would be enough to explain that. Indeed, if I swap in bostjan's 10,170,000 for the 2013 total, I get turnout of 69.465%, which is spot on to the first decimal point.

    ZeroHedge isn't what I'd call a terribly reputable source, especially when we're comparing it against official published data from the state that checks out pretty well. I'm not seeing anything suspicious here, and I wonder if there error is in their math.
     
  7. Mike

    Mike The Traveler Contributor

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    328
    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Location:
    OH
    If you want a percent of a percent, you convert to decimal and multiply.

    if you don't like the source then choose your own. There's plenty of others reporting the same. Granted the CNN's and MSNBC's probably aren't touching this one.
     
  8. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,343
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I did. I used official data provided by the county. I was able to back into the reported turnout numbers. What's the issue?

    The LA Times, at least, is reporting on this as well, and are making similar arguments as mine, claiming this Judicial Watch group's math is wrong:

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...oter-registration-records-20170808-story.html

    EDIT - also, your math fails the sniff test. Nationally, we have slightly more than 200 million registered voters. On a population base of 323.1 million, that means around 61.9% of the population of America is registered to vote. LA County's registration rate is far below that, at 49.7%. Are you going to argue, then, that LA County is seeing rampant voter fraud in the form of a high number of illegially registered noncitizens, with a voter registration rate a full 12.2 percentage points below the national average? This is, again, before we return to the fact that despite your claims more than 100% of the registered voters voted, it's easy enough to verify the size of the voter pool, the number of votes cast, and that both crossfoot to actual reported turnout of 69.5%.

    Simply put, the claim you're making requires numbers that don't make sense.

    EDIT # 2 - also, when looking at numbers that don't make sense, I tend to not trust coincidences. And, if you take the inverse of 69.465% (or, put another way, calculate the percentage by which you would have to multiply 69.465% by to get 100%), you get 143.957%. I really have to wonder if someone fucked up the math somewhere or was just straight-up misquoted by saying that the number of registered voters is 144% the size of the number of votes cast. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
    vilk likes this.
  9. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,966
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Coincidences are fine by me, but I tend not to trust anyone who does mathematics that yield a highly surprising result (like in this case) without trying to explain any of the mathematical calculations that were done (like in this case). A coincidence is a great cause to look into something in more detail, but lacking any detail in the first place is a much better gauge of fishiness, IMO.

    That's the difference between a good news source and a shitty one. The good source might say that there were x number of votes cast out of y number of registered voters, and then give y/x % of the possible votes, and then everyone can see the simple arithmetic mistake inverting the two numbers. A shitty source makes a general statement like 144% of people old enough to vote actually voted, and then not show the maths involved, and then when you look up the numbers (as I did, and it took me literally two minutes to find everything and crunch the numbers), you get a totally different result. At that point, I typically would write the entire story off as unlikely and having nothing to back up it's calculations. A good source would post a correction once someone reviewed and corrected the maths. A shitty source will pretend nothing ever happened.

    Not that going to college makes anyone smarter than anyone else, but college classes teach you these sorts of things. If you write a research paper and use only shitty sources, your arguments all start falling apart. It's great experience in general researching. Yet, it's amazing how many shitty sources of bad information there are out there, and how insignificant the repercussions are for these shitty sources.
     
  10. Mike

    Mike The Traveler Contributor

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    328
    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Location:
    OH
    No I'm not claiming more than 100% of registered voters voted.

    If the 144% or even anything over 100% is correct, no one's saying that the additional 44% did vote with certainty. They just represent the pool of potential. The calculation since we're dealing with conjecture especially with exceeding 100% since that's not possible with a population is really only calculating a possibility, not a certainty.
     
  11. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire tinkerer/aspiring builder/8 string hoarder

    Messages:
    3,883
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    minnesotahhh ehh
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...oter-registration-records-20170808-story.html
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article166187232.html
    numbers of voters broken down by county. They claim that 84% of those eligible to vote (based off census data) are also registered as voters in LA county.
    5,258,137 registered voters/6,046,750 census eligible= 84%
    The interesting detail is how judicial watch is including inactive voters into their figures while the state does not.
    Total registered voters for CA=19.4 million
    Total inactive voters for CA=5,065,746
    Total inactive voters for LA=1,300,000 (likely a rounded figure since 1,300,000 + 5,258,137=/= 6,046,750)
    1,300,000+5,258,137=6,558,137
    6558137-6046750=511,387 unaccounted for eligible voters.

    Granted I don't trust the data provided only because 1. It's self reported by the counties/states to the surveyors 2. Self reported surveys are highly unreliable and after reading the methodology on the survey it sounds even less reliable.
     
  12. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,343
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Ok, here we go... The guys at Judicial Watch are being spectacularly unhelpful by refusing to share the basis of their analysis and refusing requests for comment and whatnot, but after a bit of digging I found an official state source for the number of voters by county. Page 3 lists LA County, which as of 15 days before the 2016 election (which was the registration deadline), there were 6,222,266 eligible voters in the county. This contrasts with my estimation of 4,864,510 registered voters, above, which is actually a little below the 5,253,427 the state reports, but again I'm using 2013 population data. So, here we have an actual source from the state saying that they have about 84.43% of the eligible population who was registered to vote in time for the election.

    So, where's the fraud, exactly?
     
  13. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,343
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    So, basically, this is all just a wild stab in the dark?
     
  14. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,343
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    ...which would still only get you to 108% of eligible voters, not the 112% Judicial Watch claims (about 215k shy) in their analysis or the 144% they claim anecdotally, and there are good reasons not to include inactive voters here as well, at which point the whole thing falls apart.
     
  15. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    12,966
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Out of 10.17 M people (population of LA County in 2016), 23% are under 18, that's 7.8 M old enough to vote. Roughly 10% of adults in LA county are aliens, so that leaves ~7 M eligible voters. I say 6.2 M is close enough that it could be right, even though it still seems a little low to me, but it makes a lot more sense than the conservative press's figure of 5.1 M, which they are not clear how they calculated.

    The most reasonable explanation is mathematical error. Working the numbers from any direction you can think of starting with the numbers publicly accessible gives reasonable numbers. I see no evidence here of voter fraud, unless there is some smoking gun that these sources are not divulging.
     
  16. Mike

    Mike The Traveler Contributor

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    328
    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Location:
    OH
    I never said it was fraud. Calm your hate boner for me. All I did was post the story with the disclaimer of "Possible"

    If doing correct math with given numbers is a stab in the dark then yes sure. I think what's more a stab in the dark is to take an adamant position that there is zero chance for voter fraud, but that's just me.
     
  17. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    26,343
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Yes, and as a guy who does numbers crunching for a living, I'm telling you "improbable" is a better word than "possible."

    Hey, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, went out, got some third party data, and did my own math. The results don't support the claims being made by Judicial Watch. After wasting 15 minutes of my day here finding sources to verify their claims, I'm not going to sit here and NOT tell you they're almost certainly wrong. :lol:
     

Share This Page