As of November 25, 2016, Hillary’s popular vote lead stands at 2.104 million. But this lead is smaller than the effects of two things:
- The collapse of GOP turnout in California due to a lack of a Senate candidate
- The illegals voting
The Illegal Vote
Now among democrat partistans, the meme is that the vote among illegals is miniscule, or that anyone who brings up the illegal vote is a crank, racist, unintelligent and otherwise bad person, and that illegals voting “has been debunked” or “is unsourced”.
The most straightforward way to figure out how many illegals voted is to figure out:
- How many illegals there are
- What proportion of them voted
The most common estimate for the number of illegals comes from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Pew. Their estimates revolve around 11.4 million. These estimates have an obvious problem in that these are based on polls and census data, and depend on people telling the pollster that they are illegals.
The Bear Sterns report, from January 2005, estimates the number of illegals not based on surveys, but based on four criteria:
2. Housing permits in gateway communities
3. School enrollment
4. Cross border flows
In my opinion, inferring the population using other metrics is a much better method than depending on people to tell you that they are illegals. The estimate from the Bear Sterns was 20 million illegals in 2005.
But if it was 20 million in 2005, what is it in 2016? Well, one way to infer this is with State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) numbers and Federal prison numbers. SCAAP is legal assistance given to illegals.
In 2003, 220,000 illegals used SCAAP. In 2009, 296,000 people used SCAAP.
For Federal prisons, there were 51,000 illegals in Federal prisons in 2005, and 55,000 in 2010.
If the rate at which illegals committed and were caught for crimes was the same over this period of time, these numbers would suggest a 29% increase in their population, implying a 2010 population of 25.9 million.
(From 2010 to 2015 is more sketchy. For now we’ll ignore any increase from there. I’m not saying there wasn’t an increase, I just don’t have any data beyond this, so we’ll just go with 25.9 million.)
The paper “Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?” by Richman et al., the researchers found that 11.3% of non-citizens reported that they voted in 2008.
(Personally, I believe this is a lower-bound number, as non-citizens are probably wary of saying they voted, since it would be illegal for them to do so. But again, lets just go with this number for this analysis for now.)
11.3% of 25.9 million is 2.927 million. This is very close to the “3 million” number repeated on conservative websites.
The Richman paper also said that illegals voted democrat 81% of the time, republican 17% of the time.
(Now, I personally believe that, with Trump, the percent of illegals voting republican this election would be much lower. But once again, lets just go with 81% dem, 17% GOP.)
This gives Hillary 2.371 million votes from illegals, and Trump 0.498 million. So Hillary, with these numbers, would be expected to net 1.873 million votes.
And this is making some very generous assumptions (for Hillary) about the number of illegals not increasing since 2010, and assuming that none of them tried to hide the fact that they voted (an illegal act) when asked, and assuming that hispanics were just as likely to vote for Trump as they were to vote for McCain.
I don’t know why people would find this so shocking. The US has some of the most lax voter ID laws in the world, and Governors in several states get away with openly defying federal law and refusing deportations, explicitly allowing illegals to go to government schools and even work in government jobs. Why then is it such a stretch from that to believe they would also be voting?
In 2016, California had no republican senators running. Since the senate elections are more competitive in California than the presidential election, and the senate election is the only reason the GOP would invest in California, this resulted in the GOP putting no money into the state and there being no real reason for a republican to vote.
Now if Trump merely got as many votes as Romney, he would have gotten 644,000 more votes added to his popular vote total.
However, outside of California, Trump got 3.54% more votes than Romney. And so if California followed the pattern of the Trump getting 3.54% more votes than Romney, Trump would have gotten 5.011 million votes from California, or an additional 815,000 votes.
And so anywhere from 644,000 to 815,000 votes of Hillary Clinton’s popular vote lead can be explained entirely by the lack of a Senate race in California.
There are going to be stupid or dishonest democrats who will demand the nth level of proof for what I’m saying about California, and that Trump doing 15.35% worse than Romney in California, despite doing 3.54% better than Romney in the rest of the US, is just Trump being THAT unpopular with California republicans and ONLY with California republicans.
No, the historical anomaly of the lack of a Senate race explains the anomalously low GOP turnout in California in 2016.
The Final Tally
The results as of November 25, 2016 show Hillary winning the popular vote count 64,418,125 to 62,314,184, which is a lead of 2.104 million.
The combined effects of illegals voting and the depressed GOP turnout in California is about 2.6 million votes.
Without illegals voting, and without the California effect, Trump probably would have won the popular vote. Though we’ll see if Hillary’s lead grows any further. Maybe her lead will eclipse 2.6 million and I’ll have to eat my words, but I suspect it won’t.