Jim Crow returns
Yep.
That was the sales pitch. But the actual lists show that not only are middle names commonly mismatched and suffix discrepancies ignored, even birthdates don?t seem to have been taken into account. Moreover, Crosscheck deliberately ignores Social Security mismatches, in the few instances when the numbers are even collected. The Crosscheck instructions for county election officers state, ?Social Security numbers are included for verification; the numbers might or might not match.?
http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/doub ... index.html
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Kevin Antonio Hayes of Durham, North Carolina, is a match for a man who voted in Alexandria, Virginia, as Kevin Thomas Hayes.
John Paul Williams of Alexandria is supposedly the same man as John R. Williams of Atlanta, Georgia.
Robert Dewey Cox of Marietta, Georgia is matched with Robert Glen Cox of Springfield, Virginia.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
According to Swedlund, ?It appears that Crosscheck does have inherent bias to over-selecting for potential scrutiny and purging voters from Asian, Hispanic and Black ethnic groups. In fact, the matching methodology, which presumes people in other states with the same name are matches, will always over-select from groups of people with common surnames.? Swedlund sums up the method for finding two-state voters ? simply matching first and last name ? as ?ludicrous, just crazy.?
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Each quote is damning.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Pretext is obvious pretext.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
LOL. Ridiculous is obviously ridiculous.
VIP?s director, Jay DeLancy, exhibits a stern and sincere concern over keeping fraudsters off the voter rolls. His group has garnered much media attention for exposing suspected voting by the dead, by foreigners, by felons and, now, by double voters. This has made him a welcome guest at Tea Party events. Unfortunately for DeLancy and VIP, not a single zombie, alien, criminal or body double has, in fact, been captured based on their accusations. Nevertheless, DeLancy says his group did convince the Republican leadership of North Carolina?s legislature to adopt Crosscheck and hire FBI agent Stuber.
DeLancy says he is on the trail of an unnamed double voter who is ?currently on the run.? The unnamed man is, he admits, a traveling salesman, so ?on the run? may mean ?on the job.?
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
From a comment:
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
I wonder what the demographics of the name "Washington" is today.
It must be 100 percent Black.
You never hear about a living White Person named "Washington".
But its a common name among African Americans.
I don't envy any Black voter named "Washington" trying to prove who they are at the polling places though!
Last time I read about this, when actually looking at who was excluded, the far majority excluded were white, and that did not even include "Hispanic white people".
The total number of people excluded, and the race of each one is known. How does that crucial , definitive piece of evidence get left out of the article? I will try to find it on another topic where I researched it.
EDIT: I could not find the actual data anywhere.
The total number of people excluded, and the race of each one is known. How does that crucial , definitive piece of evidence get left out of the article? I will try to find it on another topic where I researched it.
EDIT: I could not find the actual data anywhere.
Actually, it didn't leave it out. If you look, there is a bar that shows who was excluded, who were mostly white people. However, on a proportionate basis, a racial minority person was more likely to be affected than a white person, given the much larger white population.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
The total number of people excluded, and the race of each one is known. How does that crucial , definitive piece of evidence get left out of the article? I will try to find it on another topic where I researched it.
EDIT: I could not find the actual data anywhere.
Actually, it didn't leave it out. If you look, there is a bar that shows who was excluded, who were mostly white people. However, on a proportionate basis, a racial minority person was more likely to be affected than a white person, given the much larger white population.
The list of suspected double voters are largely people registered in two states. It is possible that there are many duplicates on the list. Thus, there is no data presented on a per person basis.
We need to know how many people total, and of that group how many are unique and their race. It looks like there are 6.9 million total people (from the different states) on the list. Presumably, this would contain a lot of duplicates, however. So, the next step is figure out how many people were unique, and of each race.
Last edited by LoveNotHate on 29 Oct 2014, 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The total number of people excluded, and the race of each one is known. How does that crucial , definitive piece of evidence get left out of the article? I will try to find it on another topic where I researched it.
EDIT: I could not find the actual data anywhere.
Actually, it didn't leave it out. If you look, there is a bar that shows who was excluded, who were mostly white people. However, on a proportionate basis, a racial minority person was more likely to be affected than a white person, given the much larger white population.
The list of double voters are largely people registered in two states. It is possible that there are many duplicates on the list. Thus, there is no data on a per person basis. And it is very possible that there is no bias towards minorities.
Actually, that was addressed. Many African-Americans' ancestors, after they were freed, took their master's names; 53% of Jacksons in this country are black, for example. The same was true with names among Asian-Americans, where they are much more likely to share surnames than white people are. Minorities have the more common names and so are more likely to be ensnared in this.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
The total number of people excluded, and the race of each one is known. How does that crucial , definitive piece of evidence get left out of the article? I will try to find it on another topic where I researched it.
EDIT: I could not find the actual data anywhere.
Actually, it didn't leave it out. If you look, there is a bar that shows who was excluded, who were mostly white people. However, on a proportionate basis, a racial minority person was more likely to be affected than a white person, given the much larger white population.
The list of double voters are largely people registered in two states. It is possible that there are many duplicates on the list. Thus, there is no data on a per person basis. And it is very possible that there is no bias towards minorities.
Actually, that was addressed. Many African-Americans' ancestors, after they were freed, took their master's names; 53% of Jacksons in this country are black, for example. The same was true with names among Asian-Americans, where they are much more likely to share surnames than white people are. Minorities have the more common names and so are more likely to be ensnared in this.
if Joe Smith lived/registered in Dallas, TX, and moves in Tampa,FL and registers he may appear twice on the list. Once when the state of Texas's CrossCheck program sees he is dual registered, and again when Florida CrossCheck programs sees he is dual registered. Thus, in the aggregate list - he is counted twice. And this article points to the aggregate list.
Thus, just looking at the list is not right. The data per person is what matters. I would think that data would be available, but I can't find it.
Statistics can be manipulated so easily, e.g., in this case, if they include duplicates or not.