If they don't then IT IS THEIR FAULT, not the fault of people who have been hired to clean up the voter rolls.
Yes, technically it is their fault, but that's not a fault that is IMO sufficient to kick someone off the rolls, particularly how they do it - with a post card, and no follow up. The details do matter, and you're dismissing the details as irrelevant.
And the screening has at this point found little or no double voting fraud. The left has spun this into insane, bulls*** "Jim Crow" claims. You say you want tto just ignore the "Jim Crow" thing but that won't happen. The attempts to make this a racial hot point is the real problem here, not the process to check for voter fraud.
Goodness, I can disagree with the policy without agreeing to how AJ characterized it. Give me a break. Whether the process to "check for voter fraud" is bullcrap or legitimate does not hinge on how one news outlet characterized the motives of those putting it in place.
The political stunt in the left wing nut jobs screaming "JIM CROW!!" because someone wants to check the voter rolls for errors.
You asked why I suspected something other than 'voter fraud' was the motivation, and I answered. You ignored the answer.
And, again, checking the voter rolls for errors is fantastic, but a process that produces 99% or more false positives is a BS way to do it.
It is a first pass screening. It isn't supposed to do anything other than filter out the very low correlation data. I'm sorry you don't understand how the process works.
If I'm election list boss, why would I want my staff having to manually reject John Milton Smith from Overland Park Kansas and John Jay Smith from Wilmington NC as likely double voters? They're different people, but the list would treat them as possible double voters. If I can't reject those, then why should I reject voters with different FIRST names as potentially fraudulent? Or different spellings of last name?
Maybe, but it is a really wierd thing for you to say since you seem so vehemently opposed to confirming that is the case.
I am not opposed to 'confirming' it. If that list was JUST used to investigate the nearly non-existent cases of double voting, I'd be fine with it. As a taxpayer I'd think it's a waste of money to hire a presumably well qualified FBI retiree (gotta cost $100k/year, plus at least double that for staff and benefits, just to get started) who can't use that list to find EVEN ONE case of 'voter fraud' but there are worse ways to waste taxpayer money.
But they're using the list to voter cage. Not investigate fraud.
The problem, JasperL, is that regular routine screening of voter eligibility, when regular and routine, will not turn up a lot of voter fraud because it is regular and routine. It's like bitching that there are security guards at a bank when it has never been robbed.
Uhh... no. If the 'regular screening using the BS list is what prevents fraud, then we'd see lots of prosecutions in the first year or two, and they'd drop off because of the deterrent threat or because registrations were cleaned up and people who moved were dumped off the old rolls. There is no evidence of that - states who use the list don't find fraud, at the beginning, the middle or the end. At best they do some house cleaning, and in the meantime based on the article are kicking people off the rolls on the basis of ONE postcard and whether it's returned or not.
