• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Texas engages in Massive, inaccurate voter roll purge

If you don't know the answer, or even have any ideas, how do you know there's a better way to do it? You can't just assume there is.

21% of voters in the purged roll were done incorrectly. I'm sure as hell there's a better way to do it and if there isn't one needs to be found, I'm not an expert or even remotely familiar with Texas voting laws but I refuse to believe that it can't be done any better if I don't know exactly how. That's why we have elected and appointed government officials, to be the experts on these subjects and do things like update the voter rolls with an acceptable degree of accuracy, 79% is not acceptable. It's not like other states in the union have this problem, Texas can look at what they are doing. Texas could not use a list not appropriate for this kind of task.

Like I said, if you want a step by step plan I can't give you one, but as a citizen there's nothing wrong with demanding elected officials to do their jobs correctly.
 
21% of voters in the purged roll were done incorrectly. I'm sure as hell there's a better way to do it and if there isn't one needs to be found, I'm not an expert or even remotely familiar with Texas voting laws but I refuse to believe that it can't be done any better if I don't know exactly how. That's why we have elected and appointed government officials, to be the experts on these subjects and do things like update the voter rolls with an acceptable degree of accuracy, 79% is not acceptable. It's not like other states in the union have this problem, Texas can look at what they are doing. Texas could not use a list not appropriate for this kind of task.

Like I said, if you want a step by step plan I can't give you one, but as a citizen there's nothing wrong with demanding elected officials to do their jobs correctly.

Just because it seems like there should be a better way, it doesn't mean there definitely is a better way.

I agree that 21% sounds like a big number, but that's 21% of those scheduled to be purged -- for what seem like various legitimate reasons. But what percent of total voters did this affect? From what I gather from your links (not all of them take you to related info; they may have been changed), there are 15 million voters in Texas; 21% of 300,000, which is 63,000 people, which is 0.42% of the total voter roll.

Less than half a percent is negligible error rate. Eligible voters should be eligible to vote, of course. But no system is perfect, and with a problem that small, I'm not at all convinced there's a significantly better way of going about it.
 
Just because it seems like there should be a better way, it doesn't mean there definitely is a better way.

I agree that 21% sounds like a big number, but that's 21% of those scheduled to be purged -- for what seem like various legitimate reasons. But what percent of total voters did this affect? From what I gather from your links (not all of them take you to related info; they may have been changed), there are 15 million voters in Texas; 21% of 300,000, which is 63,000 people, which is 0.42% of the total voter roll.

Less than half a percent is negligible error rate. Eligible voters should be eligible to vote, of course. But no system is perfect, and with a problem that small, I'm not at all convinced there's a significantly better way of going about it.

Or you might say that a system with a 1 in 5 failure rate is a bad system.

It's weird to see all these right-wingers who have previously been ranting about the integrity of the election system suddenly be totally ok with purging eligible voters.
 
Or you might say that a system with a 1 in 5 failure rate is a bad system.

It's not a 1 in 5 "failure" rate; I would suspect it's the best they can do with what they've got. And these people who got the letters got them specifically so that they could fix it if it was an error. That's called a "safeguard," which is part of said "system."

Perhaps YOU have suggestions for how it can be done better.
 
Or you might say that a system with a 1 in 5 failure rate is a bad system.

It's weird to see all these right-wingers who have previously been ranting about the integrity of the election system suddenly be totally ok with purging eligible voters.

Not weird at all. Because most realize there is a HUGE difference between being purged from the voter rolls and not being able to vote. I do get why left wingers are trying so hard merge the two.
 
Not weird at all. Because most realize there is a HUGE difference between being purged from the voter rolls and not being able to vote. I do get why left wingers are trying so hard merge the two.

its easy, their success at the polls is based on maintaining a certain per centage of fraudulent votes. Acorn's only reason for existence was to stuff the ballot boxes with fake votes.
 
Perhaps YOU have suggestions for how it can be done better.

Well, we could just require everyone to re-register for every election and not carry registration rolls over from one election to another. I could live with that, but what would it to do all those people the left claim are being discriminated against by requiring a picture id or to election participation?
 
oh I agree, just saying that these voter purges could in the future make or break in a state like Texas.

....because it is impossible to register to vote.... ?
 
Well, we could just require everyone to re-register for every election and not carry registration rolls over from one election to another.

I'd be fine with that.
 
....because it is impossible to register to vote.... ?

No, but a lot of people will show up at the polls and discover they aren't on the list and just shrug their shoulders and go home.

Personally, I'd say don't do the "mass purge" deal. Instead, have someone review each case and be required to positively show a person is dead before they get purged. Not through form letters mailed out en masse, but actually checking. Yes, it's time consuming, but you have two years in between elections to do it.
 
No, but a lot of people will show up at the polls and discover they aren't on the list and just shrug their shoulders and go home.

Personally, I'd say don't do the "mass purge" deal. Instead, have someone review each case and be required to positively show a person is dead before they get purged. Not through form letters mailed out en masse, but actually checking. Yes, it's time consuming, but you have two years in between elections to do it.

This is a big part of the problem. They're not doing it with two years in between.

What the cons are doing is coming up with 'emergency legislation' on voter ID, accepting some types of photo IDs, but not others, changing who can and can't be involved with voter registration, changing how early voting is done, purging of voter rolls, etc.

All of this is being done right before a presidential election. With the changes and the court cases and subsequent rulings for or against (and appeals that could change even those), you are creating nothing but confusion. There is no need for it.

If it was done after the November election, all of the people purged and/or those without IDs, etc. would have time to rectify those problems and the legality of those laws could be decided in plenty of time for the mid-term election.

As it is now, you've got a large number of citizens, less than 2 months before the presidential election, who aren't even sure if they can cast a ballot, as they've done for the last.....however many years.
 
its easy, their success at the polls is based on maintaining a certain per centage of fraudulent votes. Acorn's only reason for existence was to stuff the ballot boxes with fake votes.

Its not even the fraudulent aspect although thats a semi-residual. Its another attempt to plague on the average person's ignorance. By saying "OMG, they want to disenfranchise the <place here the buzz demographic for the day>!!!!" Bottom line, every single voter ID/voter roll purge has stipulations that would allow EVERYONE to cast a ballot on election day. If there is something awry, then they have a window of time, depending on the state, to rectify the issue. God for bid there is a slight inconvenience.

Worst part is that voter rolls purging is normal. Happens EVERY election cycle including mid-terms. But because of the "OMG, they're disenfranchising!!" narrative marching orders have been served, it gets more attention.
 
Its not even the fraudulent aspect although thats a semi-residual. Its another attempt to plague on the average person's ignorance. By saying "OMG, they want to disenfranchise the <place here the buzz demographic for the day>!!!!" Bottom line, every single voter ID/voter roll purge has stipulations that would allow EVERYONE to cast a ballot on election day. If there is something awry, then they have a window of time, depending on the state, to rectify the issue. God for bid there is a slight inconvenience.

Worst part is that voter rolls purging is normal. Happens EVERY election cycle including mid-terms. But because of the "OMG, they're disenfranchising!!" narrative marching orders have been served, it gets more attention.

exactly right, its those demonic republicans who only want to allow rich CEOs to vote.;)
 
exactly right, its those demonic republicans who only want to allow rich CEOs to vote.;)

Actually, the trick is to ensure that Democrat voters can vote in the election, technically speaking, while making every effort to ensure that they wont. Make the process as irritating and inconvenient as possible, and many will just give up.

Or do you think it's just a sheer coincidence that some of the offices to get the new ID requirements are only open one day a month in heavily Democrat-voting districts?
 
The voter rolls need to be purged/updated fairly often. I appreciate that Texas is at least notifying people. What I don't understand, though, is why this has to happen so close to the election.
 
The voter rolls need to be purged/updated fairly often. I appreciate that Texas is at least notifying people. What I don't understand, though, is why this has to happen so close to the election.

Why did the Obama regime wait until the issue of Voter ID laws in the state could not be settled in time for the elections? That whole issue we know is going to end up in front of the Supreme Court, tell me, would the current executive branch actually support fast tracking it to there so that it gets resolved prior to the elections? What about the whole Redistricting mess?

Perhaps we need some way to take a look at the Supreme Courts procedures and their failure to address issues related to voting prior to the Elections. We know these issues are going to end up there, and they will have to review them and in some way rule. Why are they not stepping in and settling it before it has an affect on the next election cycle?
 
Actually, the trick is to ensure that Democrat voters can vote in the election, technically speaking, while making every effort to ensure that they wont. Make the process as irritating and inconvenient as possible, and many will just give up.

Or do you think it's just a sheer coincidence that some of the offices to get the new ID requirements are only open one day a month in heavily Democrat-voting districts?

got any proof?
 
Back
Top Bottom