3 ms·

If the state can't put together a list that doesn't disenfranchise one in every five voters on it, it shouldn't bother. Voter fraud is a non-existent issue and

If the state can't put together a list that doesn't disenfranchise one in every five voters on it, it shouldn't bother. Voter fraud is a non-existent issue and these mass-removals serve no basis except as cover to remove voters that don't support their party.

tathougies 7y ago
You don't think removing dead or moved voters is important? This is not about voter fraud. This is just about keeping your records in order, and making sure no one can raise suspicions about your electoral mechanisms.
- notfromhere 7y ago
  Unless the state has an effective mechanism that doesn't disenfranchise voters, and that those moved or dead voters aren't voting, the motives are suspect.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > the motives are suspect. Um, no they're not. Simply wanting to maintain a clean record is a personality difference that it is unreasonable to get suspicious over given the varying personalities of the various secretaries of state (the one who ultimately decides such policies).
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      It's not unreasonable when the party they're a part of has a long history of disenfranchising voters to gain an electoral edge.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Removing dead or moved voters is much, much less important than making sure that valid voters can still vote.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Can you explain why? If any voter is found to have voted twice (even by accident), then that voter will be disenfranchised. So -- as happened to me -- if a state mails your ballot to an old address and someone votes there (even inadvertently), the states may decide to void both ballots (even the valid one cast by you) to prevent double voting. This means it's incredibly important to get rid of old registrations and keep things up to date. Of course, care should be taken to ensure valid voters can vote, too. But, I mean, it looks like that's what happened here. At no point were the 235,000 voters identified banned from voting. The process seem to have worked as it should, and the valid voter registrations are preserved, while the old ones are being removed. Isn't that an example of things working?
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      Because double-voting is a very rare thing, while disenfranchising 50k voters in a single purge could easily swing an election in a competitive race.

tathougies 7y ago

You don't think removing dead or moved voters is important? This is not about voter fraud. This is just about keeping your records in order, and making sure no one can raise suspicions about your electoral mechanisms.

notfromhere 7y ago
Unless the state has an effective mechanism that doesn't disenfranchise voters, and that those moved or dead voters aren't voting, the motives are suspect.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > the motives are suspect. Um, no they're not. Simply wanting to maintain a clean record is a personality difference that it is unreasonable to get suspicious over given the varying personalities of the various secretaries of state (the one who ultimately decides such policies).
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    It's not unreasonable when the party they're a part of has a long history of disenfranchising voters to gain an electoral edge.
crooked-v 7y ago
Removing dead or moved voters is much, much less important than making sure that valid voters can still vote.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Can you explain why? If any voter is found to have voted twice (even by accident), then that voter will be disenfranchised. So -- as happened to me -- if a state mails your ballot to an old address and someone votes there (even inadvertently), the states may decide to void both ballots (even the valid one cast by you) to prevent double voting. This means it's incredibly important to get rid of old registrations and keep things up to date. Of course, care should be taken to ensure valid voters can vote, too. But, I mean, it looks like that's what happened here. At no point were the 235,000 voters identified banned from voting. The process seem to have worked as it should, and the valid voter registrations are preserved, while the old ones are being removed. Isn't that an example of things working?
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    Because double-voting is a very rare thing, while disenfranchising 50k voters in a single purge could easily swing an election in a competitive race.