This ourge is deliberately designed to create a lot of false positives, which would result in people being purged incorrectly.
I was doing match software on mainframes in the 1990’s, and we knew better than to assume that a matching only first & last name were enough to go on. You have to at least include the full name, including middle name/initial. and suffixes (Jr., Sr., etc.). And you should have at least one other matching info item (more is better), like, birthdate, SSN, birthplace, etc.
And then the fact that the purges are done in secret, without notifying the people purged, that there is no specified way for a person to appeal an incorrect purge, and that they happen after the last date by which people can re=register to vot – all these make it cleas that the ‘false positive purges’ are intended.
Actually, the article says they get a postcard and have to send it back to maintain their registration.
The rest of your post is right though, it does look like some states are using VERY liberal matching to exclude people who might be double registered. The SS# has to be an essential part of that, since it’s the only unique feature, unlike names. Actually, forget the names, they should just use SS#s.
If they didn’t, then why did they go to court to get access to a more accurate federal database?
See, the funny thing about Republicans and vote suppression is that they don’t HAVE to resort to vote suppression. The law is “suppression” enough in that it prevents non-citizens, felons, and dead people from voting. Republicans who go beyond the law or try to game the system should be removed from office. It’s immoral, and it’s also unnecessary. Just enforce the law. Couldn’t be easier.
To Rick Scott’s credit, that’s exactly what he tried to do. And he won. Florida got access to the database and used it to correctly maintain their voter rolls.
And unlike voter impersonation, which is not an actual problem of any signfiicance, non citizen voting is a real problem:
Politically motivated liberal justices with no respect for the law. As the article points out, Florida ultimately only purged 85 voters. The law clearly requires regular maintenance of voter lists. Florida maintained theirs in good faith. Throwing out only 85 voters is pretty clear evidence that they were being VERY careful, probably too careful.
The evidence, once again, is against you. Maybe someday you’ll stop and ponder for a moment. [qiote]Throwing out only 85 voters is pretty clear evidence that they were being VERY careful, probably too careful.
[/QUOTE]
*After *their far more massive partisan Democratic-vote-suppression scheme was ruled illegal. Maybe you skipped that part.
You’re really not well equipped to play this game, are you?
Regarding the postcard; there are problems with that, including being lost in the mail (I’m constantly getting neighbors’ mail, and vice versa), or being glanced at and assumed to be junk mail, which is about 90% of what I receive anymore.
How about this as an alternative to the postcard: Put an indication next to that voter’s name so poll workers can know that there’s a concern, then when the person shows up to vote have them sign a card saying that they still live in that precinct and want to maintain their registration. Do this 3 or 4 elections in a row and if no card is signed in that time then purge them (maybe after sending one final reminder by mail).
Considering the extremely low rate of in person voter fraud, wouldn’t that be at least as accurate as the mailed postcard? Also, it could save on postage costs, something that certainly should appeal to Republicans.
At the very least, mail something much more important and official in appearance than a postcard. At least put some large print saying something like, “your voter registration is in jeopardy, please respond” and resend it if there’s no response.
That’s a good idea too. It wasn’t long ago that there was bipartisan agreement on ways to regulate our elections. Now that there’s a major turnout difference between the two parties, we can’t have these discussions in good faith anymore.
Me, too. And I was only working with a population of approximately 16K employees. I was amazed at how many duplicates – and even triplicates – I found when matching only on first and last names. But I KNEW that it was only a first pass, and I’d have to use additional criteria to fine tune the process. Even then, the last phase was manual.
There was “bipartisan agreement” when Southern Dems, Dixiecrats, were solidly racist and did not want people of color voting. Also, there were still some honest Conservatives who abhorred racial prejudice and put their asses where their mouth was, they were willing to risk losing for the right reason.
Existing law is actually already pretty good on this subject. The problem is that Republicans want to make the laws tougher and Democrats would rather just ignore them(without having the guts to actually repeal them).
Most states have voter ID laws, the law already requires that you prove residence and citizenship, and provide ID the first time you register. These laws were all quite noncontroversial as recently as the early 2000s. 2010 is when things really kicked into overdrive, with Democrats wanting to pretty much end all oversight of elections beyond their fear of hackers in voting machines, and Republicans basically wanting to pile more regulations on top of the ones that already exist and do enough to ensure the integrity of our elections, at least when enforced.
Enforcement of existing law should be something everyone can get behind, and I’m sure most reasonable people without a partisan motive would support enforcing existing laws. The only things we might want to tighten up a little are the registration process, to require proof of citizenship and background checks to ensure no felonies, purging old registrations whenever a new one is filed as a routine matter, and a paper trail for all elections. Democrats want the latter, they can give us the former in exchange.
Is it true that there’s never been a time when elected statesmen would have sincere concern for common principles, e.g. tranquility, equality, prosperity? I certainly do agree with adaher if his central point is that the present-day GOP cannot be expected to act honorably or according to common agreed principles.
If only that were true, the vote-suppression would not be fought against as strongly as it is. If you believe that Repubs only “want to make laws tougher” then you are under-informed (or, more likely pretending to be so under-informed).
Instead GOP measures are deliberately designed to snare minorities and underclass. This is extremely clear with Crosscheck but inherent in many other GOP vote-suppression programs. Often voter recourse will be to a low-level government official, possibly a precinct election judge. What is percent of black judges in mostly black precincts?
Is it hard to believe that such an official would go easier on Jimmy Bob’s Uncle, a good old boy who left his wallet at home, than on some black char-lady with no driver’s license?
The Democrats are only honorable here if you think any means and procedures are justified if it expands access to the ballot. Including subverting the democratic process in the first place. This debate should be about what laws we pass or what laws we repeal. Republicans are at least doing this the right way: they win elections, they pass laws with wide public support. Democrats are taking a shady approach: don’t enforce existing laws, pass laws you never intend to enforce, and contest the very laws you passed in court rather than having the guts to stand up and call for repeal. If democracy is important, then it goes beyond just voting. People getting a transparent democratic process once they’ve elected their officials is just as important, and Democrats have been working very hard to subvert that in recent years because they treat the public as an adversary rather than those they serve.
I’m quite open to the argument that Republicans are politically motivated. That doesn’t mean that some of the laws they’ve passed don’t have merit. Some have been upheld by the courts as well, when written in compliance with constitutional and federal law. And again, at least they are passing these laws in the sunlight rather than trying to just subvert existing law outside of democratic accountability. If Republicans were smart, they would simply enforce existing law and quite fairly campaign on the fact that Democrats don’t think there should be ANY regulations on voting.
Well let’s see, no voter ID, no ID during registration, no proof of citizenship, no purging of voter rolls, what am I leaving out that Democrats think is necessary.
Those do nothing to prevent elections from being stolen by say, felons voting, or non-citizens, or the dead.
Make voting easier, sure. Also make the system tighter. Voting should be easier for eligible voters. It’s just hard to take seriously that Democrats care about that sort of thing when they cheer a system that allows you to register your cat.
