How the “illegals” will ensure a Democratic victory
by digby
Politico features an inflammatory article about how undocumented immigrants will tip the election to the Democrats because they are counted in the census and therefore Democratic states which have higher numbers of undocumented immigrants will have more votes in the electoral college. It’s very compelling stuff for the rubes and I’m sure they’ll eat it up:
Using citizen-only population statistics, American University scholar Leonard Steinhorn projects California would lose five House seats and therefore five electoral votes. New York and Washington would lose one seat, and thus one electoral vote apiece. These three states, which have voted overwhelming for Democrats over the latest six presidential elections, would lose seven electoral votes altogether. The GOP’s path to victory, by contrast, depends on states that would lose a mere three electoral votes in total. Republican stronghold Texas would lose two House seats and therefore two electoral votes. Florida, which Republicans must win to reclaim the presidency, loses one seat and thus one electoral vote.
But that leaves the electoral math only half done. The 10 House seats taken away from these states would then need to be reallocated to states with relatively small numbers of noncitizens. The following ten states, the bulk of which lean Republican, would likely gain one House seat and thus one additional electoral vote: Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.
Iowa has gone Democratic six out of the last seven times. Michigan and Pennsylvania have both gone comfortably Democratic in every election since 1992. But five states—Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana and Oklahoma—all went by double-digit margins to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. And Romney carried North Carolina by two percent while losing nationally by nearly four percent, a large difference. Likewise, despite solidly beating 2008 GOP nominee John McCain by seven percent nationally, President Obama eked out a bare 0.3 percent win in the Tar Heel State. The current Ohio polls also look promising for the right GOP nominee, and no Republican has ever won the Presidency without carrying the Buckeye State. There is no plausible statistical path for the Republican Party’s nominee to win an electoral majority without these states.
Accordingly, for analytic purposes, three of the states that would gain electoral votes are Democratic. The remaining seven are fairly put in the GOP column. Combining the two halves of the citizen-only population reapportionment, states likely in the Democratic column suffer a net loss of four electoral votes. Conversely the must-win Republican leaning states total a net gain of four electoral votes. These are the four electoral votes statistically cast by noncitizens.
There’s just one problem with this analysis. The electoral college also includes the two Senators from each state giving small states which represent far fewer actual humans whether undocumented or not “extra” electoral college votes by population. In other words, while California may benefit from having some undocumented workers in its census, Montana benefits from having some undocumented cows and horses.
Someone more ambitious than I am may want to crunch some numbers to see exactly how all that breaks out. I have no idea how this would compare if only human beings vs citizens living in America, without the 100 Senators included, determined the electoral math. Perhaps it would still end up benefitting the Republicans. But it seems a just a little dicey to create an entire thesis around the idea that the electoral college should only represent citizens when this existing imbalance is already baked into the cake.
Oh, and they do point out that this “unfair advantage” might just benefit Republicans because: Florida. Imagine that. I think it’s fair to say that if anyone complained about that they would rabidly defend the census from anyone who dared to otherwise “divaaaahn the will of the constitution.”
.
.
.