They may not be able to vote (legally; in practice with no voter ID requirement, maybe), but illegals can determine the outcome.

Thanks to the Constitution’s provision that House seats are apportioned to states based on the “whole number of persons in each state,” Electoral College membership (based on one elector per senator and one per representative) is skewed toward states that host a large number of illegal immigrants. And on balance, states with large numbers of illegals tend to vote Democrat in presidential elections, thus inflating the Electoral College totals for Democrats, and in a close race, making the difference.

Short of amending the Constitution, there is nothing that can be done to alter this. However, it is a factor to keep in mind in evaluating the attitudes of politicians toward open borders.

One electoral vote decided the 1876 presidential election. A swing of three electoral votes in 2000 would have elected Al Gore.

…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.

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. (snip)

Even more important is here those electoral votes would go if illegals were not counted:

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.

Thanks to the Constitution’s provision that House seats are apportioned to states based on the “whole number of persons in each state,” Electoral College membership (based on one elector per senator and one per representative) is skewed toward states that host a large number of illegal immigrants. And on balance, states with large numbers of illegals tend to vote Democrat in presidential elections, thus inflating the Electoral College totals for Democrats, and in a close race, making the difference.

They may not be able to vote (legally; in practice with no voter ID requirement, maybe), but illegals can determine the outcome.

Paul Goodman and Mark J. Rozell do the math in Politico Magazine:

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.

Even more important is here those electoral votes would go if illegals were not counted:

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. (snip) …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.

Margins this small have made the difference in presidential elections:

One electoral vote decided the 1876 presidential election. A swing of three electoral votes in 2000 would have elected Al Gore.

Short of amending the Constitution, there is nothing that can be done to alter this. However, it is a factor to keep in mind in evaluating the attitudes of politicians toward open borders.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky