This is disturbing and something I'd never realized before. Even though of course I knew the basic concept of how Electors are allocated (and you should too, if you are a US citizen and went to 7th grade.) But the "unforeseen consequences" and unexpected interaction of how people are defined differently between the census and the right to vote, skews the results. Basically, States with more illegal immigrants get more Electoral College votes than what they should based on people legally present in the State.
No, this is not about "illegal immigrants voting", and you are being a "low-information reader" who clearly did not RTFA if you think that.
The issue is the Electoral College apportionment, which is based, indirectly, on the census counts of "whole number of persons". The number of seats in the House of Representatives is based on population of a State. The quantity of Electoral College electors is in turn based on the combination of the number of Representatives and their two Senators. But that number-of-Representatives is based on "persons", not "citizens", so if there are many illegal immigrants in a State, that state gets a disproportionate amount of representation in Congress, and Electors for President in the Electoral College, compared to a State with fewer illegal immigrants.
Again, none of this is about "voter fraud" or "illegals voting". It's about how the system works. But it turns out there is a perverse incentive for a State to have more "illegal immigrants" in it, because that State then gets added clout in the House and in electing the President.
Oops. Wasn't supposed to work that way.
So how should we fix this, fellow US citizen voters?
a) Decide this is in fact OK?
b) Solve the illegal immigration problem and this solves itself?
c) Change the laws (which means the Constitution must be amended; never easy) to clarify it is "citizens" rather than "persons" that matters for Congressional representation?
d) Do c) but only for the allocation of Electors, allowing the skewing-higher of Representatives anyhow because more people in an area do require more services and thus it makes sense to have more House Members?
e) Realize "Wow, great way to skew the numbers in our State's favor, let's create even more "sanctuary cities" and less cooperation with Immigration so as to encourage more illegal immigration to our State"? (I could see California and Colorado going for this idea - at least parts of those states.)
f) Allow everyone to vote regardless of citizenship? (I really hope none of you think that is a good idea, but I bet some of you do.)
By the way, this is not just about "Hillary might win" because of the skewing. So Hillary pro-or-con comments are off-topic. The article mentions Hillary because she's still the likely Democratic candidate and because States that are less strict about enforcing immigration laws in cooperation with the Federal government, tend to go Democratic. Insert "Sanders" or "Biden" or if you are a real wish-on-a-unicorn type, "Lessig", and the point is the same.
Also: NO DISCUSSION OF TERMINOLOGY on "Illegal Immigrants" or "Illegals" IN THIS POST COMMENT THREAD. NOT THE POINT! Comments that touch on that will be deleted as soon as I see them. No, people are not "illegal", but an act of immigrating in violation of laws is an illegal act, and by any non-twisted logic and honesty in thought and language, does indeed make the person an "illegal immigrant" (and technically, a criminal).
As a "legal immigrant" to another country, Uruguay, I will remind you that if I just had shown up here and overstayed my tourist permit instead of respecting the country and following there immigration laws, I would indeed be an "illegal immigrant". But I didn't, I properly applied for residency within the required time and with the required documents. Out of respect for the people, economy, society, culture, and laws, of my new country. I expect those who come to my origin/citizenship country, USA; to have the same respect. And if they "immigrate" by doing something "illegal", then indeed they are "illegal immigrants". That does not make THEM "Illegal" as humans - but it does make their actions illegal and "illegal immigrant" is a far more accurate status than "undocumented immigrant". Hey, if I lost my Uruguayan cédula ID, I would be an "undocumented immigrant" because I didn't have the document, but I would still be a "legal immigrant" because my legal status is on file with Immigration. Same logic applies. Words have meaning.http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216