Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Without voting, noncitizens could swing the election for Obama
Washington Post ^ | Friday, October 5, 2012 | Leonard Steinhorn

Posted on 10/05/2012 8:07:12 PM PDT by presidio9

If President Obama wins reelection by three or four Electoral College votes next month, the reason may be simple: noncitizens, mostly immigrants, who don’t have the right to vote. No, I’m not talking about his immigration policy or his popularity with Latinos. Nor does this have anything to do with voter fraud. Rather, an Obama victory could hinge on a quirk in the Constitution that gives noncitizens, a group that includes illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents, a say in electing the president of the United States.

As required by Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, the decennial census, which allocates to each state its congressional seats and Electoral College votes, is based on a count of all people who live in the United States, citizens and noncitizens alike — or as the Constitution phrases it, “the whole number of persons in each state.” That means millions of noncitizens who are ineligible to vote are included in Electoral College calculations, and that benefits some states over others. Most of these noncitizens are here legally; however, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about 45 percent of noncitizens are undocumented immigrants.

In 2010 and most previous years, the census did not inquire about citizenship, but the American Community Survey (ACS), which samples our population every month, includes a breakdown of citizens and noncitizens. Plugging the 2010 ACS citizen-only numbers into the Census Bureau’s apportionment formula shows that

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2010census; 2012issues; aliens; census; electoralcollege; foreignborn; illegals; illegalvote; immigration; obamapeople

1 posted on 10/05/2012 8:07:17 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

sinking feeling..wish they would all go home and finish destroying thier own country.


2 posted on 10/05/2012 8:11:28 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I've wondered about this myself.Why in **** sake does California get 5 more Electoral votes than it should have because of millions of wetbacks living there???
3 posted on 10/05/2012 8:12:29 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Go teleport yourself back to 1787 and ask the founding fathers.


4 posted on 10/05/2012 8:14:58 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Thats why Romney needs to win in a blowout!


5 posted on 10/05/2012 8:15:42 PM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

6 posted on 10/05/2012 8:15:54 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Interesting in theory.

Texas has four new seats, three of which are supposedly based on Hispanic influx. Those EC votes will go to Romney. The South is gaining EC influence at the expense of the North and Rust belt. The South also (not coincidentally) has the largest influx from our Southern Border.

To the extent this theory is true, it operationally benefits Republicans.


7 posted on 10/05/2012 8:38:49 PM PDT by ziravan (Are you better off now than you were $9.4 Trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I don’t like your use of that word. Please keep it classy.


8 posted on 10/05/2012 8:47:26 PM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I don’t like your use of that word. Please keep it classy.


9 posted on 10/05/2012 8:47:42 PM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dalebert
sinking feeling..wish they would all go home and finish destroying thier own country.

That would be California.

10 posted on 10/05/2012 8:55:36 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ziravan

“To the extent this theory is true, it operationally benefits Republicans”

For a few more election cycles maybe..demographics are going against Conservatives in general and Republicans in particular...


11 posted on 10/05/2012 9:09:28 PM PDT by montanajoe (Blame Flame Shame or Beg I won't vote for R/R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: winner3000

isn’t that what a lib would say?


14 posted on 10/05/2012 9:57:37 PM PDT by BrianE ("Dead at 25 buried at 65 the average American" - Benjamin Franklin 1776)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

>>Go teleport yourself back to 1787 and ask the founding fathers.

The founding fathers didn’t add that clause, it was added in 1868 (14th amendment, section 2) in order to get rid of the 3-5ths compromise.


15 posted on 10/05/2012 10:45:46 PM PDT by vikingd00d (chown -R us ./base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d; All

great research! thanks!
-
but also, i serious doubt,
the Founding Fathers,
ever intended or would approve of,
over 10 million living here illegally,
on the taxpayers dime.
...and that the President,
would refuse to secure the border !


16 posted on 10/05/2012 11:52:15 PM PDT by Elendur (It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I did the math.

Approximately 25 million people in the 2010 Census cannot vote.

More than 8% of our population.

But each one of them is counted to determine the electoral votes and the number of Congressmen in each state.

Roughly 11 million illegals.

Roughly 14 million Legal Residents (work visas, Green Cards, foreign students, etc.).


17 posted on 10/05/2012 11:57:49 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000; Gay State Conservative
*** I don’t like your use of that word. Please keep it classy.***

You're right winner. The proper term for them is: Espaldas mojadas.

18 posted on 10/06/2012 4:02:42 AM PDT by Condor51 (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

Undocumented Democrats?


19 posted on 10/06/2012 4:12:51 AM PDT by BOBWADE (RINOs suck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
He was merely referring to a past governmment operation. How can history be offensive?

Operation Wetback In 1949 the Border Patrol seized nearly 280,000 illegal immigrants. By 1953, the numbers had grown to more than 865,000, and the U.S. government felt pressured to do something about the onslaught of immigration. What resulted was Operation Wetback, devised in 1954 under the supervision of new commissioner of the Immigration and Nationalization Service, Gen. Joseph Swing. Swing oversaw the Border patrol, and organized state and local officials along with the police. The object of his intense border enforcement were "illegal aliens," but common practice of Operation Wetback focused on Mexicans in general. The police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states. Some Mexicans, fearful of the potential violence of this militarization, fled back south across the border. In 1954, the agents discovered over 1 million illegal immigrants. In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned.

It looks like Mr. Swing had the right idea, but even back then we didn't have the guts to defend our Nation - McCarthy had some good company and we were already being desensitized with "liberal" "values".

20 posted on 10/06/2012 4:30:11 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Condor51; winner3000
I don’t like your use of that word. Please keep it classy.

In my day I've crossed a few international borders.Many,many borders in fact.I have never,*ever* violated any country's immigration laws,not even Australia's,a nation that denied my application for a "green card".And,in return,I don't expect *any* foreigner to violate the immigration laws of *my* country.Not one! I will not tolerate it,I will not look the other way!

I'm afraid I have to tell you that I'll continue to use that word so that I might avoid using the words I *truly* want to use...words that would certainly get me banned from FR for life.

Sorry if you're offended.

21 posted on 10/06/2012 4:51:42 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Hispanics entering CA illegally don’t have to swim. You’re referring to those entering TX.


22 posted on 10/06/2012 10:12:41 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

This article is essentially commenting on the differential between proportional representation by voter and the distribution of votes in the EC.

The EC heavily favors the GOP. The EC gives one vote to each state for each senator and rep. This means smaller population states get a huge boost in their representation versus larger states.

More of the smaller states are red than blue. Of the six states with 20 or more electoral votes, NY, CA and IL are reliably blue, PA leans that way, TX is reliably red, and FL swings.

Of the 8 states with only three EC votes, five are red and three are blue.


23 posted on 10/06/2012 10:35:40 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

” .wish they would all go home and finish destroying thier own country.”

Welfare is much better here....now they can ghettoize our country, and increase our crime rate.All of those Somalis that Obama has let settle here have tripled the crime rate wherever they settled. No need to go home.


24 posted on 10/06/2012 10:51:39 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dalebert; Gay State Conservative

” .wish they would all go home and finish destroying thier own country.”

Welfare is much better here....now they can ghettoize our country, and increase our crime rate.All of those Somalis that Obama has let settle here have tripled the crime rate wherever they settled. No need to go home.


25 posted on 10/06/2012 10:52:02 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Illegals are just doing the job for our REAL enemies, and they don’t realize it.

Hopefully they will wake up and join the people who really do want
to keep America from being taken over.

They too will not go unscathed in the end.


26 posted on 10/06/2012 11:50:36 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (0bama's agenda¬óDivide and conquer. FREEDOM OR FREE STUFF- YOU GET ONE CHOICE, CHOOSE WISELY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester

I’d like to think that we are smart enough here to make our political points without resorting to racial epithets that some may find offensive. Your intentions are no doubt in the right place, but such language cheapens our position the same way it was wrong for Rush Libaugh to call Sandra Flouke a “slut,” even if she happens to be one.


27 posted on 10/06/2012 12:10:55 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
but such language cheapens our position the same way it was wrong for Rush Libaugh to call Sandra Flouke a “slut,” even if she happens to be one.

With all due respect, "slut" is not one of those proscribed four-letter words. It's part of the King's English, describing a female who is overly-promiscuous.

As such, "slut" would appear to be an apt description and, thus, a legitimate use of the word.

28 posted on 10/06/2012 12:22:33 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ziravan

“Texas has four new seats, three of which are supposedly based on Hispanic influx. Those EC votes will go to Romney.”

Within 25 years, when the children of all those millions of “[illegal] Hispanic influx” into Texas come-of-voting-age, to which part are those electoral college votes going to go?

Hint:
The exact same fate of California awaits Texas — and any other state in which Hispanics congregate…

Case in point:
New Mexico — once considerably more conservative than today, NM has now become the second “white minority” state in which Hispanics are at or near the majority. And NM is becoming increasingly “blue”.

Arizona is holding out for the moment, but won’t be able to do so forever.

What we are seeing in the southwest, from California to Texas, is the “emerging Atzlan”. That portion of the country is destined to be majority Hispanic, as much as certain portions of Western Europe will eventually become Islamic...


29 posted on 10/06/2012 12:44:31 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: okie01
With all due respect, "slut" is not one of those proscribed four-letter words. It's part of the King's English, describing a female who is overly-promiscuous.

As such, "slut" would appear to be an apt description and, thus, a legitimate use of the word.

Listen professor, you could make the same point about most offensive language. The point is not whether you find a word offensive. Or even whether you agree with others who find such language offensive. In civilized discourse you go out of your way to avoid offending anyone personally while making your point. That's just common courtesy. Rush understood this, and apologized. So did Ed Schultz for that matter, no rocket scientist. If this is something you are not capable of doing, you need to stay on the sidelines. This website has been capable of accomplishing great things, but it's public perception will always be colored by its lowest denominator.

30 posted on 10/06/2012 12:46:18 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“The EC heavily favors the GOP.”

It won’t much longer.

Have you read about the demographics of Texas? The exploding (carefully chosen word) birthrates of Hispanics vis-a-vis the declining birthrate for Euros all-but guarantees that within a generation, Texas will “tip” from majority-Republican to majority-democrat.

Once the Pubbies can no longer count on Texas’ 55 electoral votes, it will become mathematically impossible for them to again win the presidency.

Even today, the ‘rats start off with a larger “electoral college baseline” (i.e., states in which victory is near-guaranteed to them) than do the Republicans.

Once Tejas goes, it’s all over.

I don’t like it any more than you do.

But that’s the future.


31 posted on 10/06/2012 12:53:15 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist; Gay State Conservative

why do they get 5 more House members than they should have!?


32 posted on 10/06/2012 2:44:09 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Listen professor, you could make the same point about most offensive language. The point is not whether you find a word offensive. Or even whether you agree with others who find such language offensive.

Forgive me if I detect a whiff of condescension in your response.

My point was simply making a distinction between words that are "offensive" -- but appropriate (if accurate) -- as opposed to words that are "nasty" -- and inappropriate (even if accurate).

"Slut" belongs to the former category.

Please accept my apologies if I have offended you with my response.

33 posted on 10/06/2012 3:00:21 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: okie01
My point was simply making a distinction between words that are "offensive" -- but appropriate (if accurate) -- as opposed to words that are "nasty" -- and inappropriate (even if accurate).

If that's the point you were trying to make, you are on the wrong website. In politics, the only thing that ever matters is public perception, and "inappropriate" is a big part of that.

34 posted on 10/06/2012 3:03:50 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d

Illegals are counted for one reason, to destroy this republic.


35 posted on 10/06/2012 3:06:53 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Exterminate rats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
I don’t like it any more than you do.

But that’s the future.

Actually that's the future that the DNC envisions, but its not entirely accurate. As much as they would like Hispanics to be the new blacks, they aren't and they probably never will be. They don't have the history of racial injustice to fall back on, and they generally came here for their own economic reasons. No, they are not assimilating as fast as previous minority groups. But the ones who are successful will hate paying taxes just as much as the rest of us. And as a group they have major issues with the liberal social agenda. Will they break 60/40 Democrat for a generation or two? Probably. But it would be foolish to write them off the way you appear to be doing. I disagree with a lot of what Rick Perry has to say, but I think he was doing the Lord's work in recognizing the problem for what it is and trying to solve it instead of alienating a huge percentage of his voting bloc out of hand.

36 posted on 10/06/2012 3:11:29 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Where’s the Missouri Compromise when you need it?


37 posted on 10/06/2012 3:17:11 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
why do they get 5 more House members than they should have!?

That was just a quick guess on my part.But it's clearly the case that a very substantial percentage of the country's 30 million wetbacks live in CA...25%...33%...maybe even half.Even 7 million wetbacks living in CA translates to something like 20% of the state's population.Which means lots of extra Electoral votes.

38 posted on 10/06/2012 3:44:28 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; okie01

In other words, one should say, “non-legal persons from ‘south-of-the-border.’”


39 posted on 10/06/2012 6:58:02 PM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
In other words, one should say, “non-legal persons from ‘south-of-the-border.’”

I suppose one could if one didn't want people to understand what one was talking about. WE seemed to be talking about about the usage of the word "slut" (or lack thereof).

I guess you were trying to be clever, but do what you will with some friendly advice: Don't.

40 posted on 10/06/2012 7:04:43 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

not only do they get 5 extra House members, those members come from the cities where the illegals live. So the illegals are represented even tho they do not vote. Just as my neighbors are represented in Congress and the state House even though they do not vote.


41 posted on 10/06/2012 7:07:28 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Having the right to free speech is by definition having the right to offend. By all means, proceed.


42 posted on 10/10/2012 1:54:04 AM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson