New Hampshire Voter Fraud 2016

Voter fraud, Big Red Car?

Big Red Car here on an early Friday morning to discuss New Hampshire Voter Fraud in 2016.

Let me share two important facts:

 1. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) won New Hampshire by 2,736 votes.

HRC (D) 348,526 votes
DJT (R) 345,790 votes

 2. Senator Kelly Ayotte(R) was defeated by Governor Maggie Hassan(D) by 1,017 votes.

Same day voter registration and voting

Under New Hampshire law, a new resident can register and vote on Election Day — Same Day Voter Registration.

In 2016, approximately 6,600 such New Hampshire voters registered and voted the same day.

Of the total of 6,600 new New Hampshire residents who registered and voted on Election Day, some seventy percent used an out-of-state photo ID to identify themselves in order to be able to register and vote on the same day.

Of the 6,600 new New Hampshire residents in November 2016, only 1.014 have actually applied for and received a New Hampshire drivers license as of early July 2017. This information comes from comparing the voter rolls and the New Hampshire drivers license database.

This leave 5,526 voters unaccounted for.

Of the total of 5,526 unaccounted for new New Hampshire residents only less than three percent ever registered a New Hampshire vehicle.

WTF, Big Red Car?

To recap:

 1. Some 6,600 New Hampshire votes registered and voted on Election Day.

 2. Of those 6,600 new voters, only 1,104 applied for and received a New Hampshire drivers license.

 3. Of the total of 6,600 new voters less than 3% registered vehicles in New Hampshire.

This leaves more than 5,250 new New Hampshire voters who neither applied for a drivers license nor registered a car. Is that a curious fact to you? Does it make you go hmmmmmm?

Here’s what it means

Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire’s four (4) electors by 2,736 votes.

Senator Kelly Ayotte lost her re-election by 1,017 votes.

In both instances, the Democrat won. Whatever happened — the obvious implication is Democrat voter fraud — it favored the Democrat in both races. Seems likely, no?

Voter Fraud?

You decide. There are the facts. You decide. did the Democrats cheat?

But, hey, what the Hell do I really know anyway? I’m just a Big Red Car.

  • AD

    Your final question could just as easily be “You decide. Did the Republicans cheat but still fail to win the election?” You have no data to show how those 5,526 actually voted.

    • JLM

      .
      Yes and no.

      When a person uses same day registration, they pick a party affiliation for party primary purposes.

      The vast majority of the persons involved selected “Democrat” as their party of affiliation.

      Of course, that does not indicate for whom they voted, but a reasonable inference can be made.

      There is also an advantage because a new registrant who selects “Democrat” will have their application reviewed by the Democrat Election Judge. The Republican Election Judge has the right to review it thereafter, but the initial screen will be made by the party affiliation indicated by the registrant.

      The data entered at the time of registration is important to the parties for normal data mining purposes, so the Dem party of New Hampshire has a very good handle on who is on their rolls. This is not public info, so it cannot be obtained as easily as public info.

      Once a person votes in a party primary, they are able to be identified by public info as they had to select a ballot by party ID.

      This is done because only primary voters can vote in primary runoffs. As an Election Judge, I had to turn away a fair number of folks who wanted to vote in a runoff, but hadn’t voted in the original primary.

      It is very difficult to come up with a plausible explanation for this anomaly other than wholesale voter fraud. This technique first came to light in the Norm Coleman v Al Franken Minnesota election which was decided by a handful of votes. Coleman should have challenged the outcome.

      Same day voter registration is very difficult to either justify or explain as most states certify their voter rolls thirty days before an election. It is very odd.

      BRC
      http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

      • AD

        I did not know that you had data on the party affiliation of the same-day registrants. If it is true that a vast majority were Democrat then I can see your point. It is more likely that a same-day registrant that identified as Democrat voted for Clinton.

        That alone doesn’t mean there is fraud, but regardless, same day registration seems like a bad idea. I just looked it up and I am surprised that 13 states (plus DC) now allow same day registration.

        • JLM

          .
          There are different approaches top same day registration, not all are done the same way. Some states require proof of residency in the state such as a local utility bill with their name on it.

          New Hampshire does not require anything other than a public appearance with a picture ID.

          As an Election Judge in Texas (wherein one can vote a provisional ballot to be cleaned up within 7 days at the county admin center), I have seen multiple people use the same utility bill with different names on it as a form of identification (not to register).

          BRC
          http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

  • David Wolff

    New Hampshire has quite a few colleges and universities with out of state students (In the same way my daughter voted in Minnesota even though she has a NY driver license). Then she graduated and left the state. Another New Hampshire fact is that several sections are suburbs of Boston, and a few city residents (with their MA driver licenses) move out there. I can’t prove that makes up the missing 5,526, but it’s plausible.

    • JLM

      .
      College students should be voting in their official state of residence. State law requires a new resident to obtain a driver’s license and register their vehicles within 60 days of taking up residence.

      Why does any state allow same day registration and voting? Look to see which party controls the legislature and the Governor’s mansion.

      As an Election Judge, I deal with this issue all the time. The voter rolls in Texas have to be certified 30 days before the applicable election. If someone is questionable, they get to vote a provisional ballot until their residency is cleared up.

      This is evidence of a scam, nothing more.

      BRC
      http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

      • David Wolff

        I’m a little confused about your argument. Are you saying that college students should vote in their official state of residence (by that I assume you mean the state where they got their original driver license) because that’s required, or because that would be your preference? I would like to see some data, e.g. were those 5K “missing” votes cast at university polling places?

        • JLM

          .
          A citizen votes in the jurisdiction of their official state residence. When one goes to college, it does not change the student’s official state of residence, hence, the in-state v out-of-state tuition distinction.

          A student can change their residence by formal paperwork of rescinding their former right to vote in their prior residence. In decades as an Election Judge, Precinct Chair, member of the County Republican Exec Committee, I have never stumbled on this and we have more than 100K students in Austin, TX.

          As to polling places, there is no record of where a person voted unless they have voted by absentee or mail in ballot.

          If there is a polling place at a university location — which I do not know to be the case — then it would have no real data on the identity of the voters.

          Anecdotal data indicates that most of the folks who shipped in for the vote were from big cities in Ohio and Boston.

          BRC
          http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

  • sigmaalgebra

    If we could get some more data, then, depending on the additional data we get, we might be able to work up a statistical hypothesis test that says that either (A) there was cheating going on just as we suspect from the data so far or (B) there was no cheating going on but we just observed something with such low probability that we don’t believe it.