Dear Washington Times,

As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.

Best Regards,

Jesse Richman

 

January 31 update

I had a very nice discussion with the author of the Washington Times article.  He helped clear up some ways in which I and others had misunderstood his article.  He clarified that he in no way intended to say I had new data for 2016 as I and others had read the piece to imply.  And I apologized for my misreading of the piece.   I sought to clarify that my key concern was that there is substantial uncertainty concerning the level of non-citizen voting in 2016 and I don’t want to get ahead of the data.  As I have no national data specifically for 2016 I do not have a specific point estimate for that year.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail