- California alone could be responsible for enough illegal votes to give Hillary her plurality
- “NOT Hillary” was the national popular vote winner
The following article by Andy Schlafly (a son of Phyllis r.i.p.) writing at Townhall, lists the easy time of it illegal voters (or voters of a status illegal in other states) can have in California. We believe that, whether just focusing on that state, or combined with or as a result of general laxity towards voter integrity in many states, Trumps statement about winning the popular vote but for illegal voting is plausible (however irrelevant to his winning the election under our state-enhancing electoral college system).
After excerpting parts of Schlafly’s entirely worthwhile article we offer a summation about California and the rest of the country before beating the horse again about the use of the terms “popular” and “plurality”.
Trump Has a Point About Illegal Votes
. . . Most Americans are unaware just how far California’s election procedures have drifted away from the rest of our country.
. . . The claim that Hillary won the national popular vote is due entirely to the huge run-up in votes that she claims she received in California.
. . . A look at rules in California which are rejected by nearly every other state illustrates why California’s vote should not dictate the future of our country.
For starters, California continues to accept mailed-in ballots lacking in safeguards against voter fraud for many, many days after the rest of the country voted on Election Day. . . .
California does not require any photo identification or comparable verification before allowing someone to cast a ballot. This is in contrast to the states that do have safeguards against voting by impostors, and most of the voter ID states were carried by Trump.
California is one of only three states that allow convicted felons to vote while sitting in jail behind bars. . . .
California harbors illegal aliens in far greater numbers than other states, with several major cities in California designated as “sanctuary cities.” The entire state was declared a “sanctuary” by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, . . .
In 2013 the California legislature even passed a law to allow illegal aliens to serve on juries, in contrast with all other states. . . .
Illegal aliens have been given so many benefits and protections unavailable to them in other states that the term “California citizenship” has been used to describe its un-American approach. Many of those illegal aliens could have voted because in practice there is nothing to stop them from doing so . . .
In addition, California did not allow any Republican to be on the general election ballot for U.S. Senator this year, due to an unusual process that eliminated the Republican candidate in the primary. (other races in the state were also affected) . . .
If the outcome of the election were based on who won the most popular votes rather than who won the Electoral College, then the candidate who spent the most money would have an enormous advantage. The very problem that liberals criticize so often – the influence of money in determining the outcome of elections – would be far worse if popular vote were all that mattered. . . .
What if California were not counted
Recognizing full well a similar mathematical exercise as regards two or three states Hillary might pick could result in her winning the election, we think California is unique enough to be considered the relevant outlier. The reasons include the comparative laxity in its laws as described above, that it has such a high concentration of illegal residents, that the political conditions, the predominant aura, practically justifies illegal voting. Consider:
Based on New York Times figures as of early this week: Hillary has 64,878,584 votes and Trump 62,514,134, a difference of about 2.36 million. California cast 8,292,775 for Clinton and 4,276,750 for Trump. If you take away the California votes each received from the total votes each received the arithmetic works out to Trump on top with 58,237,384 to Hillary’s 56,585,809, a clear Trump majority.
Don’t need the fantasy of discounting California to put Trump over Hillary in legal votes cast.
The difference of votes between the two in California is much greater than the difference of votes nationally. Our post yesterday addressed the study that said 6.4% of the national vote might be by illegals. But given that the likely suspects are proportionately greater in California we find it quite plausible that 10 to 15% of the California vote was fraudulent, maybe more because the incentive in that state was held by illegals to show up and voice disapprove of Trump. The state, as an electoral vote factor was not contested and there was little to drive the vote for many legal electors. Such a percentage would mean .8 to 1.2 million in illegal votes in California alone.
Keep in mind the much ballyhooed (by liberal media) Trump national deficit is 2.36 million. For reasons given, we suggested in yesterday’s post that we believe it plausible that the illegal vote could be double the 6.4% figure nationwide. But lets be conservative and say the figure is only 5% of the national Hillary vote, less California. Five per cent of that results in a figure of over 2.8 million. Yes we assume 100% of the illegal voting is for Hillary, as in our humble judgement, in round numbers, that is the proportion of Democrat to Republican fraud. Combining the two, say a million in California and 2.8 million elsewhere we approach a 3.8 million takeaway from Hillary.
More people did not vote for Hillary than voted for her
Even conservative pundits should discipline themselves to stop saying, or repeating the Hillary narrative, her preferred term, that she won the “popular vote.” It is misleading terminology and the simple, more accurate term, “plurality vote” is available. As it stands now Hillary Clinton won the plurality of voters as in she received more votes than Trump (again an irrelevancy in our federalist/ state empowering/ electoral vote system) but not close to a majority given the 6% or so that other candidates garnered.
True statements:
- Hillary did not receive a majority of popular votes
- NOT Hillary was more popular
- In her lifetime, her fellow Democrats Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and her husband were never “majority” presidents as they were empowered even though a majority of voters did not vote for them. It was all about the electoral college.
- Her husband in particular probably would not have survived a run-off election in 1992 had that been constitutional. At only 43% her husband received a smaller percentage of the popular vote than she or Trump did, but he was sworn into office.
- Hillary would not have been a Senator from New York, a Secretary of State or the Democrat nominee but for the fact her husband got elected under the electoral college, not a “popular vote” standard. She owes a lot to the electoral college. She owes her career to Bill benefiting from the electoral college rules, the same rules that applied to Trump.
- It strains objectivity to call the plurality winner the popular vote winner in any electoral system. A plurality winner in a five-person contested race could conceivably be the “winner” with only 21% of the vote. Does one properly refer to that person as the “popular vote” winner?
R Mall
