OMG! - 1.5 Million Voters Purged in NY State Alone !

[garybeck]

Over 1,500,000 NYS Voters Purged

Posted on October 21st, 2008 by bolipari
Have you been purged from New York State’s database?

As I wrote about in my last blog, HAVA required substantial changes to the way voter registration lists are managed, requiring that all states maintain a single statewide database, and that voter registration records be purged of incorrect records. But depending on how database name matching is done, this can result in many legally registered voters being removed from the rolls or set to “Inactive” status, which means on Election Day their names will not be in the poll book, and they will not be able to vote.

But a question has remained, how many voter records have been purged from New York State’s voter rolls? Now we have an answer. I submitted a Freedom of Information Law request for all records in New York’s NYSVOTER voter registration database. Early in October, I received a copy of NYSVOTER records from September 23, 2008. I wrote a program to analyze the 12,010,045 voter records and can now report the number of voters who have had their status set to “Purged” or “Inactive” in the Empire state, and the reasons given for the change.

The data reveals that New York State has moved 1,661,244, or almost 14% of the voter records, from “Active” status to “Purged” or “Inactive”, meaning they will not be in the poll books on Election Day. Whether or not these changes are valid is anybody’s guess, and there’s no way to know for sure how many of these have been incorrectly removed from “Active” status. But I’ll wager that a significant number of these records are actually legally registered voters who should be allowed to vote on Election Day, but won’t be.

I’ve provided two spreadsheets...

http://www.nyvv.org/boblog/2008/10/21/over-1500000-nys-voters-purged/

[tblue]

1. "Come and get me, too, Chino!"

You have to have seen West Side Story.

[Chipper Chat]

77. Sarah Palin reminds me of "Glad Hand"

And McCain reminds me of "Lt. Shrank"

[illuminaughty]

102. I love that line and my favorite choreography EVER!

[BrklynLiberal]

2. This is getting scary. Can you imagine how many millions of voters have been purged around the

country..and you can be sure that not too many of them were thinking of voting Repuke..
Add to this, those whose registrations have been "lost", destroyed, misplaced, or whatever, and then those who just will not get into vote due to local problems..and finally, tampering with voting machines..
There will be millions and millions of people who might have voted, who will not be able to, or whose vote will not be counted.

I wonder if there will ever be a true accounting of how many votes were lost..

[Rosa Luxemburg]

50. I hope that everyone checks now they can still vote

if they have been purged falsely then they should be reinstated immediately with the help of lawyers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. yes ,people should check their status now

If they've been moved to inactive status, just contacting their local board of elections may suffice, or they should be able to cast a provisional ballot and have it counted.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

55. I hope that state Democrats are urging people to do this

[Tigress DEM]

73. What is the LAW about voting on Election Day in New York?

How can someone check if they are registered?
Let's think solutions people.

SECRETARY OF STATE HAS ZILCH ON THEIR WEBSITE, BUT>>>>

NY STATE BOARD OF ELECTION SITE HAS A LOOK UP YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS AND POLLING PLACE

https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx


If someone finds out they AREN'T on the rolls how about try to vote early and if you've been purged DEMAND to know why you weren't informed and provide proof of address change and or registration etc...

IF they ask your "reason for needing to vote by absentee ballot, state NY PURGED ME FROM THE VOTER ROLLS. I AM NOT absent from NY, just absent from the ROLLS. FIX IT.


Were you able to vote in the primaries?
If it happened after that, the laws regarding late voter purging should apply.


IF NONE OF THIS WORKS here are some phone numbers

Questions? Call the State Board of Elections at 518-473-5086 or the Federal Voter Assistance Program at 1-800-438-8683


GOOD LUCK!

[Tigress DEM]

74. Look up your NY Voter Registration Status HERE:

http://www.elections.state.ny.us

https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx

voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx

[elkston]

3. Is this information reliable? People get too worked up about this "stolen election" stuff. (n/t)

[garybeck]

4. no, they don't get too worked up about it, considering the last two elections were stolen.

go back to sleep.

[wvbygod]

29. 2004 was stolen? I have never seen that outside of DU

I don't recall Kerry or anyone else involved in the election calling it stolen?

Where do you get the data from that shows 2004 as stolen?

[WhollyHeretic]

33. That is not just a creation of DU. Do you think Roger Ebert is a fairly mainstream person?

"I'm getting tired of being angry about the 2004 Presidential election. It is now clear enough that it may have been stolen. The vote totals in Ohio are particularly suspect."
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/REVIEWS/810049997/1023

[wvbygod]

35. "may have been stolen" and "was stolen" are two completely different claims

Agree?

[WhollyHeretic]

36. No I don't. Why don't you look at some of the data that's out there.

It's not hard to find.

[WhollyHeretic]

38. "It is now clear enough that it may have been stolen" Is not the same as saying

maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It lands pretty close to certainty rather than uncertainty. Especially if you read the rest of the article.

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. Guess you haven't heard what's going on in your own back yard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sDoyCGVacU

[WinkyDink]

95. Well, duh. If it were PROVEN IN COURT, Bush would be in TEXAS.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. sure, I rely on Ebert to analyze vote totals...

Whatever.

[WhollyHeretic]

87. Way to twist things around or maybe it's just a lack of reading comprehension.

I was responding to the charge that this idea is only on DU.

Thanks for playing though.

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. fair enough: it isn't only on DU

So what? If that was all you were trying to establish, then why choose Roger Ebert and ask whether he is "mainstream"? Don't we pivot to credibility at some point? (ETA: I mean credibility of the arguments, not credibility of Roger Ebert -- I really don't care about him either way.)

[PufPuf23]

39. There is actually a GAO report about the 2004 POTUS

election that suggest that the election was stolen.

I will see if I can find it online.

Edit to Add:

Here is a 1 page html summary of a 518 page report:


"As the elections technology environment evolves, voting system performance management, security, and testing will continue to be important to ensuring the integrity of the overall elections process. GAO found that states made changes--either as a result of HAVA or on their own--to address some of the challenges identified in the November 2000 election. GAO also found that some challenges continued--such as problems receiving voter registration applications from motor vehicle agencies, addressing voter error issues with absentee voting, recruiting and training a sufficient number of poll workers, and continuing to ensure accurate vote counting. At the same time, new challenges arose in the November 2004 election, such as fraudulent, incomplete, or inaccurate applications received through voter registration drives; larger than expected early voter turnout, resulting in long lines; and counting large numbers of absentee ballots and determining the eligibility of provisional voters in time to meet final vote certification deadlines."

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-450

Here are other online GAO reports on US Election.


http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/uselections.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. that suggests that 2004 was stolen?

Fairly oblique suggestion, that.

[illuminaughty]

104. John Conyers, Dude

Please watch this. It just became available two days ago. RFK, Jr. and Greg Palast
http://www.stealingamericathemovie.org/

[Stellabella]

44. Look at the exit polling vs. the final results in 2004.

In every other country on earth, election judges use exit polling to determine if the election was fair. Kerry was leading in many swing states in exit polls, but they switched late in the day and Bush won those votes. There were swings of 8-10%.

Definitely stolen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. this urban myth keeps getting weirder

In every other country on earth, election judges use exit polling to determine if the election was fair.

Oh, c'mon. That doesn't even make sense. You seriously think that "election judges" in Canada use exit polling to check their hand counts?

I'll leave it there for now, because this thread should be about helping New Yorkers to vote.

[Stellabella]

63. It's not an urban myth.

"Exit Polls are considered around the world to be the most accurate way to test for fair elections. In an exit poll, voters are asked how they voted as they leave the polling place. These polls are far more accurate than pre-election polling."

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

Do a bit of Googling before you tell me it's a myth. It does make sense. And quit making fun of my choice of words.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2006/10/our_independent_exit_polls.html

http://www.amazon.com/Was-2004-Presidential-Election-Stolen/dp/1583226877

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. well, I disagree

I know damn well what US Count Votes wrote -- I know most of the authors -- but that doesn't mean you should believe it. That first claim could mean almost anything, and they don't substantiate it. Most of the world does not use exit polls to validate their elections. Nor do they substantiate their blanket assertion that exit polls are "far more accurate than pre-election polling," and they never have.

Freeman doesn't do it in his book, either. He cites reasons why exit polls 'should be' more accurate, and he cites a few specific polls that appear to have been accurate. But he doesn't cite any national U.S. exit polls that have been accurate, and he doesn't give any reason to believe that the 2004 exit polls were accurate when they were at odds not only with the official returns but also with pre-election polls, as they dramatically were in several states.

I don't think it is just a matter of "choice of words" when you claim that "election judges" do one thing or another. It's a statement of fact, or not. I don't see how changing a word or two could save the claim.

But you aren't to be blamed for assuming that all those Ph.D.s would know what they were talking about. Apparently they didn't.

[Stellabella]

65. Why don't you go look at some of theother responses to your

attack?

And quit picking on one of my phrases. The UN uses exit polls to determine election fairness in many countries around the world. If you don't know that, you're not knowledgeable about this issue.

buh bye.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. evidence?

If the UN "uses exit polls to determine election fairness in many countries around the world," it shouldn't be any trouble for you to provide links for three examples.

I can't stop you from believing it, but I can challenge you to support it.

ETA: You could start with one.

[garybeck]

82. don't bother with it...

it's a waste of time

this person just denies all the facts and gets people like you to waste your time talking to a brick wall. the "red shift" of difference between the exit polls and the official results is absolutely real. you know it and i know it. don't waste your time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

91. bullshit

Gary, if it's a "fact" that the United Nations uses exit polls, then document it. Otherwise, stop blowing smoke.

My question of the month: do you really think that Kerry won New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota by double digits? If so, do you have any reason to believe it other than the exit polls?

ETA: Meanwhile, next time you post on New York (or anywhere else), won't you please post some information on what voters should do? I'm surprised I should have to request that of an activist.

[Stellabella]

101. Yep, you're right - thanks.

:hi:

[dansolo]

59. Depends on what you mean by stolen

Elections can be stolen long before election day by preventing people from voting, either by purging them from the voting roles illegally (e.g. FL 2000) or by making the process so cumbersome that people are unable to vote (e.g. 10 hour waits to vote in OH in 2004). There is no way to accurately assess how many Kerry voters couldn't vote in OH in 2004.

[garybeck]

81. are you nuts?

Rolling Stone had a front page article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"

There are at least 6 books written about it, and 3 movies.

if you don't yet know 2004 was stolen, don't look in DU. start here

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

there is no doubt in my mind and it's not because of anything I ever read on DU

[illuminaughty]

103. I guess you had to be here (DU) to know it was out there

I'm not trying to be insulting either. It just scares me when people haven't heard it. We have a whole group in KC called "No Stolen Elections" and we protested weekly. It was a painful time here at DU. But it was all over the air waves.

If you have an hour and a half this is a great documentary and it was just available online two days ago. http://www.stealingamericathemovie.org/

[Hekate]

6. Yes. Read RFK Jr's article in the new Rolling Stone mag, or see his interview with Rachel...

... posted online.

Hekate

[marions ghost]

31. YES

recommended.

Robert Kennedy :loveya: :patriot:

Imagine--Actually CARING about whether people get to vote and have their votes counted! RADICAL!

[TooRaLoo]

19. Uh, you can't get "too worked up" about stolen fucking elections.

:headdesk:

[tazkcmo]

22. How do you get TOO worked up

over "this stolen election stuff"? I'm shocked to see these words on DU given the recent history of stolen elections, voter caging and vote flipping. Without 100% confidence in our voting system our whole democracy fails. Unbelievable.

[marions ghost]

30. "too worked up"

where have YOU been????

This is the key to understanding these bizarre times IMO.

:shrug:

[Pacifist Patriot]

62. As long as I live in a representative democracy I will care passionately about fair & open elections

[uponit7771]

5. Uhhhh, does the Obama campaign have a plan to challenge and fix this shit?!???!?!?

[TheWraith]

9. They've got a 5,000 person election security team already in place. Has been for months. nt

[AZBlue]

79. It's actually 5000 in Florida alone.

[ecstatic]

17. I want him to work towards a national system as soon as he gets elected

I'm so sick of this sh1t!~

[TooRaLoo]

20. That's the first issue I'd like to see him deal with, also. nt

[melonkali]

7. Add this to the Colorado purges and PA's no-trail no-early-vote ripe-to-steal . . .

It's so disheartening.

[WCGreen]

8. They purge people all the time...

People move and don't tell the Board of Elections, they die and get missed by the BOE...

It depends on how long it was since the last purge...

That's your key base line...

[garybeck]

11. yes, but this is a HUGE purge right before an election and

studies show that these types of purges affect democrats more than republicans.

[riqster]

32. Typically, votes are NOT purged right before an election.

BOE's have too much to do already, preparing for the big day. This type of activity is usually done during the downtime between elections so as to save resources and allow for double-checking.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. how do you know when they were purged? n/t

[riqster]

84. I have quite a bit of experience in elections

...and can tell you that BOE's are chronically understaffed and know better than to undertake such a process right before an election. We do that type of cleanup between elections, during such downtime as we can get, when it is going to cause less headaches for the staff, and allow for fixes of any mistakes made during the purge.

Any time you see a major purge within a four-month period prior to an election, there's either an idiot in charge or a partisan motive. Perhaps both.

[OnTheOtherHand]

90. right, but you missed my point

Do you have evidence that there was a major purge within a four-month period prior to the election? What do we know about when these people were moved to inactive or purged status?

These aren't rhetorical questions.

[amborin]

10. we need a very robust win to counteract all this fraud

[No Elephants]

12. Why is this happening in states with Democratic Governors?

[City Lights]

18. A question I'd like answered.

:mad:

[TooRaLoo]

21. Didn't HAVA give this job to Sect's of State?

Either way, still partisan and still NOT SAFE.

[rvablue]

46. Because a lot of purging is done by local registrars. n/t

[Alhena]

13. Surely voters will be allowed to cast a provisional vote

[tazkcmo]

23. Provisional vote = No vote

[Essene]

27. wrong... folks MUST go vote...

this is exactly the kind of rhetoric we dont need right now.

[Essene]

26. yes, and it's annoying hearing anybody implying you shouldnt go vote

[nichomachus]

14. This isn't necessarily a bad thing

I'm not saying there isn't skulduggery afoot, but this seems pretty consistent with population flows.

I used to work with a company that had large mailing lists. Keeping them up to date was a nightmare. About 15 percent of people move every year. About half of those move out of state. Even those that stay in state move to a different city or a different county. Some people move several times. Add to that the number of registered voters who die, and there are a lot of inactive voters on the rolls.

I once moved three times in the space of 14 months -- and I had registered to vote in each place, meaning that I was an inactive voter in two states.

So, this number isn't as huge as it looks.

Now, it's possible that people were purged inappropriately, but I wouldn't get out of breath just based on the raw numbers. They don't seem that out of line, although they are big numbers.

[onlyadream]

15. NY not a swing state

I doubt it means anything except a clean up since NY is a liberal state.

[gmoney]

16. well, depends on the makeup of the purged voters...

Are they all Ds or undeclared?

Could Obama theoretically spare a million or so votes in NY and still win?

[progressoid]

24. but

to be fair, some of these voters have been purged legitimately (people who've moved out of state, died etc.). Of course without a detailed investigation, we have no idea how many.

[Essene]

25. "they will not be able to vote" - i hate this kind of talk, honestly

you can get provisional ballets.

I KNOW it's still annoying and suspicious, but nor is it any better to be telling peopl and screaming "YOU WONT BE ABLE TO VOTE" when you can.

the left needs to stop this kind of shrill screaming NOW.

regardless of being purged from state lists or not, people need to hear "GO VOTE" regardless.


grrrrrr

[riqster]

34. You omit a key point:

Provisional ballots are not always counted on Election Night, or in some cases at all. After concessions, after a 'winner' takes office, what good is that ballot? Zip. Nada. Zilcho. Look at Ohio in 2004.

Just casting a ballot does not mean your vote was COUNTED. An uncounted ballot is about as useful as no ballot at all.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. but most Ohio provisionals were counted

They didn't alter the outcome, but they could have.

In fact, most provisional ballots nationwide were counted.

Of course you're right that the ones that aren't counted aren't much use.

[Essene]

97. i didnt miss that point at ALL. We still must tell people to go vote, dammit

this doom stuff is DESTRUCTIVE.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. Lipari actually says that at the end of this item

He sort of misquoted himself in the middle about people being "turned away from the polls." But people need to know to ask for provisional ballots if necessary. Checking registrations in advance would be a smart move.

[Tigress DEM]

72. The problem with "provisional ballots" in a state with rethugs trying to win is this:

In Ohio 9% were thrown out with a new last minute rule that the DOB had to be on them although this had not been a requirement going in and in Ohio many were given out only when "asked for" and no one told the person what the requirements were, so many were not signed by the election judge and discarded for that reason.

Nobody said DO NOT "GO VOTE" but this is the 3rd Presidential Cycle with evidence of severe tampering by the RNC and REMEMBER it is a main reason all those 9 US State Attorneys were dismissed, because they wouldn't play the game.

[Essene]

98. it doesnt matter... folks must be clearly told to VOTE...

the response must be to tell people to go in there and vote, not to freak out, not to turn around and go home.

[bushisanidiot]

28. I agree with the people who are saying this isn't as big a deal as the blogger is making it.

most of those numbers are from people moving, possibly across town or across state which would change their polling location, in which case they would re-register. So they purge you off from your old location because you have re-registered at a new location.

Also, from the spreadsheet it looked like 88,000+ died, plus there are those who moved out of state, and some who have married or divorced and changed their names. There's a helluva lot of people in NY and millions more either re-registered or newly registered than were purged. Don't worry about NY.

[riqster]

37. Purging right before an election is effectively disenfranchisement

...that's why it is rarely done. It IS a big deal, because purged voters get Provisional Ballots which are highly unlikely to be counted in time to have an impact on the election's outcome.

Elections are supposed to be about VOTERS, not candidates.

How do we motivate people to participate if their votes may or may not have an impact? And this sort of ill-timed purging makes it worse, by taking people off the 'active' rolls for minor errors that do not have any bearing on the legitimacy of their ballot. People get disgusted, say their votes don't matter, and hang it up. We MUST encourage voting, not discourage it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

60. They shouldn't even call them "provisional ballots", but "replacement" ballots. And they

should be counted FIRST! With those of the armed-forces personnel.

[riqster]

85. The problem is, there are valid reasons to check them first

...provisional ballots are used for lots of reasons, and the pollworkers have to take care before one is counted. So, we need to limit the reasons for handing them out in the first place.

[Joe Chi Minh]

100. Of course. But malfunctioning machines must head any list of imperative

reasons.

[Essene]

99. everybody must be told to vote... and screaming about how provisional ballots wont count... HURTS US

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. let's focus on what people need to know

(1) Check your registration, and make sure you know where you're supposed to vote and in what election district.

(2) If you don't show up on the rolls, ask to cast a provisional ballot.

We can speculate about how many people who were moved to inactive status should still be active, but it's moot right now.

[rvablue]

45. One thing to keep in mind here....

in a very large state like NY, you have to factor in how many people died in a 4-6 year period?

I'm not denying that there is some major BS going on, but when you see a number like this, you do have to think of some statistics like people moving, dieing, going to jail....in a state that large it could add up quite quickly.

Now, if a number like that came out in Virginia or North Carolina, I would be FREAKIN'!!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

47. Hopefully, it's party and race neutral

I think you are probably right in the case of New York. But we still have to be ultra-vigilant in a matter as vital to democracy as voting.

[rvablue]

48. Oh, I agree, always vigilant! n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

61. More likely, it would be a grotesquely fraudulent misrepresentation of the

actual number. Win or lose, apt comparisons should be made with pre-Bush elections, pro rata for the population.

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. ACTION ITEMS: checking reg status; voting provisionally if necessary

Link to check registration status: https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx
If that fails, call county BoE (can use http://www.elections.state.ny.us/CountyBoards.html to find)
Check polling place; bring Election District # to polls
If you're not in the poll book, ask firmly to cast a provisional ballot.

Anything I'm forgetting?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

68. rfk jr said don't take a "provisional ballot"...they just get thrown out

[OnTheOtherHand]

70. in Ohio in 2004, 78% were counted

Now, in Ohio and some other states, it would be very important to make sure you were in the right precinct (or the line for the right precinct) before, if necessary, casting a provisional ballot. But blanket advice not to cast a provisional ballot, without any advice about what to do instead, would be bad advice. If Ohioans had followed that advice, Kerry probably would have lost by considerably more.

[riqster]

83. Provisional counting rules vary from county to county in Ohio

While refusing one is obviously a bonehead recommendation, we shouldn't rely too much on them.

Also, here's a fun question - WHEN were those 78% counted in 2004?

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. I definitely don't advocate reliance on them

According to a contemporaneous account, counting of Ohio's provisional ballots began on Friday, November 12. As far as I know, all the counties were done doing whatever they were going to do with PBs well before the safe harbor deadline. But, as you say, there weren't common standards, so who knows how that would have played out if the votes were in a position to be decisive?

ETA: Just to underscore: I see some people saying 'PBs are placebo ballots'; I see some saying, 'Don't worry, vote provisionally!'; I don't hold either of those positions, and I don't think you do either.

[Bill Bored]

108. Yes! Bring ID (in case the database shows it's required, even if it's not). nt

[demo dutch]

56. This is my worry, they'll steal it again!

[Overseas]

58. K&R and add to the Purged Votes file.

All the info will be necessary if we need to get the country to STOP AND RE-VOTE with auditable paper trails even when the media is pushing a McHate "victory" and Obama concession...

and itching to play the meaningful panel discussions they've taped about lingering racism in the USA trumping even the tanking economy...

The more information we've assembled and aired publicly, the more support we can get this time to REVIEW THE RESULTS and STOP THE PRESSURE TO CONCEDE that will be exerted if the GOP decides to try to steal yet another election.

We're hoping that with these landslide territory polling totals, they won't steal it.
But they are indeed fudging things and that may be to reduce the victories in the House and SEnate.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

66. I'm nervous now...on my drivers license I have my middle initial and on voter reg not....

I have voted since Carter without a problem .....hope it doesn't change this time

[sohndrsmith]

76. Joe the "Plumber" 's name didn't match either, but I'm guessing

that was overlooked because he's a registered Republican. If you're not, It's worth checking into and verifying. Scan, copy or photograph any documents that might be rejected. It "seems" that only first time voters are being targeted for the most part, but I have a sneaking feeling that if you're a registered Dem voter, your vote may be more likely to be challenged.

I concur with those who recommend RFK Jr's book and info... It's incredible that either party would be willing to use unethical (illegal) methods to steal or skew the vote in order to win, but that's reality. We all have to acknowledge that, I think.

If you've been registered for a while, my guess is you can probably clear this up - just keep a record of what is said and done in case it doesn't work. Your vote counts.

[Top Cat]

67. We will see more of this..

[hedgehog]

69. I live in New York and I'm not worried. NYC is pretty Blue, so

officials there have no incentive to eliminate Obama voters. Upstate there are several critical local races that could change the make-up of the State Legislature. We've been deadlocked for years with a Republican Senate and a Democratic Assembly. I have to believe that the State Democratic Party is keeping an eagle eye on events Upstate.

[sohndrsmith]

75. a few things concern me here...

1. Because NY is "blue" it shouldn't concern us.
2. The practice of purging so close to elections - and why we don't have legal specifications for this.
3. The proof that elections in this country can - and HAVE been - stolen - yet many of us still seem dismissive about it.
4. If you want McCain to win improperly (steal, purge, suppression, etc.), ignore all of these things.

[budkin]

78. Why would they waste their time in NY?

[AZBlue]

80. Purged from when?

I mean, have they purged 14% of the voters from the 2004 database? Because in NY, it wouldn't be surprising to have 14% of voters move in 4 years and therefore their 2004 registration data be inaccurate and invalid now.

[SmokingJacket]

86. I'm a poll worker, and I can testify that at the last election, there

were many dead people on the rolls. I mean, that just includes the very few I had knowledge of. And there are many, many more people who are no longer in the state.

In a state of 12 million voters, that 1.5 million are no longer valid seems reasonable. What I'd want to know is how many were ADDED at the same time.

If there are now 14% FEWER voters -- that is a real problem.

But I suspect that those who were purged were valid, and that for every person taken off for moving or dying, at least one other was added because they moved in or reached voting age.

It is definitely worth checking, but I have a great deal of faith in the NYS elections system, because it is completely bipartisan.

I hear about people in other states being unjustly removed, but I honestly haven't seen these problems in NY.

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. FWIW the active count is about the same now as in March

Hard to tell whether that is the 'right answer,' but it isn't facially outrageous, depending on the rest of the history.

That said, I tend to agree with Bo Lipari that a bunch of people who were moved to "inactive" because of "Mail Check" will be surprised not to find their name in the poll book. At least they should be able to vote provisional ballots and have those counted.

[SmokingJacket]

96. That's what we do if someone believes they are in the right precinct

but their names do not, for whatever reason, appear in the poll books.

In the case of my town, it's almost always college students who've moved every year.

[Bill Bored]

106. Right but Mail Check was NOT 1.5 MILLION! nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

94. Thank you. Looks like people are blowing this way out of proportion.

We're talking less than 10% of voters, which is pretty consistent with the rate of people moving away or dying in most states. And yes, we need to look at how many voters were added.

[NashVegas]

93. A Lot Of These, I Wouldn't Be Too Concerned With

Lotta Republicans in upstate NY.

However - 65k were wiped out from Erie County

[Bill Bored]

105. Mostly bullshit! nt

[Bill Bored]

107. "Lipari stressed that the effort is legitimate"

"There's really for the first time a wholesale statewide effort going on to remove voters from the rolls," said Bo Lipari, director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, a group which is policing the state's halting efforts to modernize voting machines.

Lipari stressed that the effort is legitimate, since people who have died or relocated shouldn't be registered to vote in their old districts.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=731410&category=REGION