The Democrats Have A Plan To Steal Elections, And Here It Is…

by Scott McKay | October 15, 2015 3:53 pm

It wasn’t Malcolm X who coined the term “by any means necessary,” but he certainly popularized it. And while Malcolm X probably didn’t deserve to be claimed by the Left as one of their heroes, since he espoused a few things they wouldn’t find particularly acceptable, the “by any means necessary” ethic certainly animates the modern Democrat Party the way it did Malcolm X and his followers.

After all, radical leftist guru Saul Alinsky, who influenced both the current president and his potential successor Hillary Clinton, espoused the same philosophy under a slightly different name. And Clinton, in office as Secretary of State and on the campaign trail, has let her slip show several times that “by any means necessary” is just fine with her. Take her illegal conduct of foreign policy and intelligence on her private e-mail server, for example, and the shady means by which she and Sid Blumenthal ginned up the war in Libya[1] that ultimately led to the Benghazi massacre. Or her recent insistence on using executive orders to impose gun control violative of the 2nd Amendment.

And as Democrats go, we know that Hillary is hardly the most lawless of the bunch. The Obama administration is staggering in its devotion to “by any means necessary.”

But there’s more going on than what you see. Much more[2].

When we think about illegal immigrants swinging an election to the Democrats, our minds immediately go to voter fraud, where undocumented immigrants can cast ballots thanks to lax voter ID laws[3].

However, illegal immigrants could steal the presidential election for Hillary Clinton without a single one of them ever casting a vote. In fact, all they have to do is be here.

Politico [4]ran a story this Saturday detailing how this could happen. As I hope you know, the presidency isn’t decided by direct election, but rather the Electoral College. Each state is worth a certain number of electoral votes depending on the number of congressmen it has.

Representation in the House, as you also hopefully know, is determined by the census. Under a process known as reapportionment, states which gain population gain seats, states which lose population lose seats. So far, so basic.

However, under the 14th Amendment, congressional reapportionment is determined by the “whole number of persons in each state,” no matter what their legal status is.

You may perhaps begin to see the problem here.

According to American University scholar Leonard Steinhorn, if illegal immigrants were not counted in the “whole number of persons in each state,” California would suffer[5] the most, losing five House seats. New York and Washington would also lose one each. In national elections, all three of these states are generally bluer than a Smurf.

Texas would be the only Republican stronghold to lose seats if illegal immigrants weren’t counted towards reapportionment, with two seats lost. However, Florida — a swing state which a GOP candidate must win under almost any foreseeable scenario to have a chance in the electoral vote — would also lose one vote.

Where would those ten votes go? According to the same study, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

Three of those states — Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan — generally vote Democratic.  Five of them — Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma — typically vote heavily Republican.

That leaves two swing states, North Carolina and Ohio. As Politico points out, polls in Ohio have been leaning GOP for 2016.

Also, North Carolina’s status as a swing state mostly stems from Obama carrying it in 2008, by 0.3 percent of the vote. In that election, he beat John McCain by 7 percent nationally. In 2012, Obama lost North Carolina by a little over a point to Romney, in spite of beating him by three and a half points nationally.

Add that up, and it would be a four-point swing to the Republicans if illegal immigrants weren’t counted. Not a staggering number, but certainly enough to swing an election. Just ask Al Gore.

If this doesn’t begin to make you realize why the Democrats are so passionate about open borders, even despite the negative effect illegals have on wages and unemployment/underemployment among citizens – and specifically citizens (single mothers, blacks, Hispanics, millennials) who typically vote Democrat – then consider that left-wing parties in practically every other Western democracy have been huge open-borders advocates.

If the electorate won’t support your agenda, then get a new electorate. Open borders is the key.