Reports of Widespread Voter Suppression in New York State Democratic Primary

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
0
Reports of Widespread Voter Suppression in New York State Democratic Primary

  • COLIN KALMBACHER SEP 13, 2018 3:39 PM
On the day New York State Democrats select their party’s standard-bearers for the upcoming midterm elections, voters are reporting numerous forms of procedural roadblocks, incorrect voting information and disenfranchisement that many suggest rise to the level of voter suppression.

In a series of tweets beginning mid-morning on Thursday, New York Magazine author Rebecca Traister detailed her own purge from Democratic Party voter rolls–despite the fact that she’s voted from the same address for the past four years. Traister noted that she wasn’t the only one experiencing such issues


Rebecca Traister@rtraister
· 18h

Replying to @rtraister
So folks, if Cynthia, Jumaane, Zephyr or Zellnor loses by a single vote tonight, just wait for the affidavit ballots to come in! (Seriously though what the actual fuck)


Rebecca Traister@rtraister

Also worth noting: this was 8:30, and the poll watcher who helped me said I was the second person she’d spoken to who had this problem—another woman who said she was an active, regular voter and not in the books.

Traister’s thread continued–and taking stock of the same thing happening to a friend of hers. She wrote, “Also! My next door neighbor, registered for years as a Dem, an RHA activist, extremely politically engaged, especially in local and state elections this season, is also not on the rolls at our polling place. She’s on her way to get a court order as we speak.”

Soon, other New York State voters began chiming in with similar stories.

Lydia Polgreen, editor-in-chief of HuffPost and a former director at the New York Times, said she had her information scrubbed from the Democratic Party’s voter rolls as well.


Lydia Polgreen

✔@lpolgreen

Happened to me too.

Rebecca Traister@rtraister

Guess who wasn’t on the rolls this morning at the polling place I’ve voted for four years?

6:22 AM - Sep 13, 2018


Jess McIntosh, a New York resident who hosts the popular Signal Boost show on Sirius XM also went to vote on Thursday morning. And when she did, McIntosh discovered that her name was not on the Democratic Party’s voter rolls either.

McIntosh described her situation by way of advice to others facing the same issue. She wrote, “Had to assert my rights for the 1st time at a polling place today! Reminder: if you’re in the right place and not on the rolls, sign an affidavit and cast a provisional ballot.”

As the day wore on, similar stories cropped up all across Twitter and Facebook.

Kristen Richardson discussed her own experience and that of multiple friends, noting that she’d never once been forced to accept an affidavit–or provisional–ballot before today:


Rebecca Traister@rtraister
· 18h

Guess who wasn’t on the rolls this morning at the polling place I’ve voted for four years?

Kristen Richardson@butwhyevernot

Three of us just in my line weren't on the voter rolls at my polling place (in Clinton Hill). This is the first affidavit ballot I've had to cast there. WTAF indeed.

6:30 AM - Sep 13, 2018

Podcast host John Gawarecki-Maxwellalso noted the extent of stories coming from New York State voters but didn’t appear to have experienced the issue himself:
John Gawarecki-Maxwell@iamjohngm

All I’m hearing today is stories of people mysteriously purged from the voter rolls all over New York again, just like in the 2016 primary. Oh, but I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence that these purges overwhelmingly help the incumbent.

10:33 AM - Sep 13, 2018

Another podcast host and author, Virgil Texas, made light of his own apparent disenfranchisement. He wrote:

Virgil Texas

✔@virgiltexas

https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/1040299226389987329

To the 6 people left who have not been purged from the New York voter rolls: it’s Election Day. Kindly do what I couldn’t do and vote. When you get to all those judicial races just write in someone funny. Write in the Noid. Nick Mullen. It’s legal. There’s no laws on Election Day

11:00 AM - Sep 13, 2018

Even Democratic National Committee member Nomiki Konst experienced an apparent purging of her information from New York’s voter rolls.


Nomi: TODAY Vote Cynthia, Jumaane, Zephyr

✔@NomikiKonst

https://twitter.com/NomikiKonst/status/1040291691389960192

Went into vote skipping. But just found out my name was not listed on the roll at my polling place. Despite having the recently sent documentation from board of elections with me. Had to fill out provisional. #Astoria #Queens #NYPrimaries

10:30 AM - Sep 13, 2018 · PS 17 School Gym

At least some voters found they were still on the voter rolls but came to learn that they had somehow been moved over to the conservative New York State Reform Party (which also holding their primary on Thursday).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/lawand...ion-in-new-york-state-democratic-primary/amp/

______________________________________

But our platform is better.

But you are corrupt.

Discuss...........
 
Honestly.

Just make all voting online.

I mean if society has accepted to conduct 10x more sensitive personal info on the internet like bank accounts, tax filings, etc...then Im sure we can handle online voting.

Online voting would get rid of shit like this....sure new problems would arise but its better than this prehistoric crap.

Inb4 "but but they can hack the election".....Yes they could....they can do thay right now as well with our old school voting.
 
Honestly.

Just make all voting online.

I mean if society has accepted to conduct 10x more sensitive personal info on the internet like bank accounts, tax filings, etc...then Im sure we can handle online voting.

Online voting would get rid of shit like this....sure new problems would arise but its better than this prehistoric crap.

Inb4 "but but they can hack the election".....Yes they could....they can do thay right now as well with our old school voting.

I disagree. Go back to paper ballots, and end closed voting. They can be mailed for easier access. If you are a registered voter for the area, you should be able to vote in any election.
 
Currently, all the votes input into machines have central control- the software code and the physical machine. This is completely unacceptable and should never have been allowed in the first place. Paper ballots are better but still, polling places can be corrupted. The bright side is the corrupt polling places will have noticeably different results making them easy targets for audits. Some states have central locations where paper ballots are sent to and counted. This is worse than counting at individual polling places because the fraud can have a larger impact and be better concealed, making audits extremely expensive and time consuming.

No matter what, the key is to make the process as fully decentralized as possible. Meaning no single central authority(or just a few) is in charge of counting. This is currently not even close to being the case.

There are a couple options. The most secure and transparent election would be done on an efficient and fully decentralized blockchain. It wouldn't be hackable(only attackable which would be prohibitively expensive) and the results could be 100% publicly verified and audited for eternity. The hard part is anonymously securing voter identities to a specific address to ensure 1 person=1 vote. As well as ensuring the blockchain is secure enough to withstand potential attacks(which again could be made to be supremely expensive- like $billions with no guarantee that the attack is successful).

More options:
- 100% open source voter machines/online that automatically registers votes online
- Optical answer sheets(scantrons) with a 100% publicly verifiable database
 
Currently, all the votes input into machines have central control- the software code and the physical machine. This is completely unacceptable and should never have been allowed in the first place. Paper ballots are better but still, polling places can be corrupted. The bright side is the corrupt polling places will have noticeably different results making them easy targets for audits. Some states have central locations where paper ballots are sent to and counted. This is worse than counting at individual polling places because the fraud can have a larger impact and be better concealed, making audits extremely expensive and time consuming.

No matter what, the key is to make the process as fully decentralized as possible. Meaning no single central authority(or just a few) is in charge of counting. This is currently not even close to being the case.

There are a couple options. The most secure and transparent election would be done on an efficient and fully decentralized blockchain. It wouldn't be hackable(only attackable which would be prohibitively expensive) and the results could be 100% publicly verified and audited for eternity. The hard part is anonymously securing voter identities to a specific address to ensure 1 person=1 vote. As well as ensuring the blockchain is secure enough to withstand potential attacks(which again could be made to be supremely expensive- like $billions with no guarantee that the attack is successful).

More options:
- 100% open source voter machines/online that automatically registers votes online
- Optical answer sheets(scantrons) with a 100% publicly verifiable database

Whether you go paper or electronic, we should be given a corresponding number to our vote. There should be a publicly available database for each voter number to the votes cast, so that individuals could verify and report that their vote was counted correctly. This would allow for public sourcing, while keeping privacy in tact.
 
Oh no, people were unable to cast a vote for ass cancer or super aids?

<{danayeah}>


But seriously, imagine pulling the lever for either of these folks...
 
Whether you go paper or electronic, we should be given a corresponding number to our vote. There should be a publicly available database for each voter number to the votes cast, so that individuals could verify and report that their vote was counted correctly. This would allow for public sourcing, while keeping privacy in tact.
Just as long as a voter's ballot has no direct link to their identity. Keep it anonymous. Randomize the ballots irrespective to voter name/age/address/etc. Like a lottery ticket. You get a little unique number that you type into a webpage. Better yet create a phone app that can scan a QR code off the ballot stub.
 
Reports of Widespread Voter Suppression in New York State Democratic Primary

  • COLIN KALMBACHER SEP 13, 2018 3:39 PM
On the day New York State Democrats select their party’s standard-bearers for the upcoming midterm elections, voters are reporting numerous forms of procedural roadblocks, incorrect voting information and disenfranchisement that many suggest rise to the level of voter suppression.

In a series of tweets beginning mid-morning on Thursday, New York Magazine author Rebecca Traister detailed her own purge from Democratic Party voter rolls–despite the fact that she’s voted from the same address for the past four years. Traister noted that she wasn’t the only one experiencing such issues


Rebecca Traister@rtraister
· 18h

Replying to @rtraister
So folks, if Cynthia, Jumaane, Zephyr or Zellnor loses by a single vote tonight, just wait for the affidavit ballots to come in! (Seriously though what the actual fuck)
Wait, wait, wait. I'm not going further than this until we clear something up.


This is a white girl. Voter suppression tactics have always focused on race, district, or other outwardly identifying traits in order to target and "suppress" votes from that population (not individuals); chiefly Republicans trying to suppress Democrats, Democrats trying to suppress Republicans, and more elaborate efforts focused on suppressing the populations known to vote one way or the other.

This is the Democratic Primary. You're telling me they took this girl's name off the ballot because they knew which Democrat she was going to vote for before she voted? Even if that's true for her, as a writer, how are they preternaturally predicting those who would and would not vote socialist?

Sounds like another dumb fembot journalist with a conspiracy theory confirmation bias, but I think I already know why you like her.
 
Wait, wait, wait. I'm not going further than this until we clear something up.


This is a white girl. Voter suppression tactics have always focused on race, district, or other outwardly identifying traits in order to target and "suppress" votes from that population (not individuals); chiefly Republicans trying to suppress Democrats, Democrats trying to suppress Republicans, and more elaborate efforts focused on suppressing the populations known to vote one way or the other.

This is the Democratic Primary. You're telling me they took this girl's name off the ballot because they knew which Democrat she was going to vote for before she voted? Even if that's true for her, as a writer, how are they preternaturally predicting those who would and would not vote socialist?

Sounds like another dumb fembot journalist with a conspiracy theory confirmation bias, but I think I already know why you like her.


These accusations were made in 16 as well.

She is 1 of many accusations they documented here.
 
These accusations were made in 16 as well.

She is 1 of many accusations they documented here.
If you're going to talk about 2016, be specific. What phase of voting? Where? How-- the logistics and strategy of suppression? By who and against whom?
 
Wait, wait, wait. I'm not going further than this until we clear something up.


This is a white girl. Voter suppression tactics have always focused on race, district, or other outwardly identifying traits in order to target and "suppress" votes from that population (not individuals); chiefly Republicans trying to suppress Democrats, Democrats trying to suppress Republicans, and more elaborate efforts focused on suppressing the populations known to vote one way or the other.

This is the Democratic Primary. You're telling me they took this girl's name off the ballot because they knew which Democrat she was going to vote for before she voted? Even if that's true for her, as a writer, how are they preternaturally predicting those who would and would not vote socialist?

Sounds like another dumb fembot journalist with a conspiracy theory confirmation bias, but I think I already know why you like her.



Well, there was a lot of fuckery in 2016 I'm not surprised the records haven't been looked over and cleaned up. I'm sure it's some incompetence somewhere.

But we also learned about the massive data mining operations so it really wouldn't surprise me if there was manipulation on the individual level by domestic and/or foreign actors.. because they have the data. Anyone with a major social media footprint is in theory at risk for this sort of interference. It's really not much effort to determine who you're voting for when you're broadcasting it to the world.

 
Last edited:
If you're going to talk about 2016, be specific. What phase of voting? Where? How-- the logistics and strategy of suppression? By who and against whom?

A Year After Brooklyn Voter Purge Scandal, a Timeline of Action and Inaction



Apr 19, 2017 · by Brigid Bergin and Jenny Ye


For many New Yorkers, Donald Trump's victory last fall is the only news they care about from last year's elections. But one year ago today, voters in this heavily Democratic town were heading to the polls in a closely-watched presidential primary featuring a marquis match-up between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. On the Republican side, it was Donald Trump versus everyone else.

The results revealed profound problems with the way New York runs elections. Thousands of voters showed up at the polls only to find their names had been removed from the books. As WNYC had already reported the day before, more than 100,000 voters were illegally purged by the city Board of Elections in Brooklyn alone.

Complaints poured into hotlines and politicians called for reform. Looking back, did they deliver?


https://www.wnyc.org/story/year-after-brooklyn-voter-purge-timeline-action-inaction/
 
Wait, wait, wait. I'm not going further than this until we clear something up.


This is a white girl. Voter suppression tactics have always focused on race, district, or other outwardly identifying traits in order to target and "suppress" votes from that population (not individuals); chiefly Republicans trying to suppress Democrats, Democrats trying to suppress Republicans, and more elaborate efforts focused on suppressing the populations known to vote one way or the other.

This is the Democratic Primary. You're telling me they took this girl's name off the ballot because they knew which Democrat she was going to vote for before she voted? Even if that's true for her, as a writer, how are they preternaturally predicting those who would and would not vote socialist?

Sounds like another dumb fembot journalist with a conspiracy theory confirmation bias, but I think I already know why you like her.

Unfortunately this one of the poisons that comes with so much publicly available information. It is quite probably that simply using a smart algorithm they could get voter predictions into the 80's as far as accuracy. For example, just examining her twitter feed, if she had repeatedly supported a candidate then it could essentially predict with accuracy in the high 90's who she is likely to vote for. While other signs and relational attachments would have dramatically reduced adjustments, it is very likely that a couple dozen factors could tell them who she would vote for in general.
 
There are always going to be glitches in any system, period.

Voter suppression would require an abnormally high number of such glitches and a targeted pattern of some sort, no?
 
Unfortunately this one of the poisons that comes with so much publicly available information. It is quite probably that simply using a smart algorithm they could get voter predictions into the 80's as far as accuracy. For example, just examining her twitter feed, if she had repeatedly supported a candidate then it could essentially predict with accuracy in the high 90's who she is likely to vote for. While other signs and relational attachments would have dramatically reduced adjustments, it is very likely that a couple dozen factors could tell them who she would vote for in general.
This is a workable hypothesis, but wholly unsubstantiated, and entirely untested. Did they collect the names of everyone who had a problem? Did they then check to see if these people all posted politically? Do we have knowledge of such an algorithm, and is it open-source?

In 2016, follow-up found that many Bernie supporters who alleged "voter suppression" in Arizona, for example, in the press, turned out to new voters who simply didn't fill out their voter registrations correctly, or Independent voters who didn't realize they had to be formally registered as a Democrat in order to vote in a Democratic primary (because in Presidential elections they do not have open primaries). Ignorantly, all these people immediately presumed, "Corruption! Voter suppression! Muh establishment!"

Meanwhile, the real cure to their woes would have been a wee bit of education.
A Year After Brooklyn Voter Purge Scandal, a Timeline of Action and Inaction



Apr 19, 2017 · by Brigid Bergin and Jenny Ye


For many New Yorkers, Donald Trump's victory last fall is the only news they care about from last year's elections. But one year ago today, voters in this heavily Democratic town were heading to the polls in a closely-watched presidential primary featuring a marquis match-up between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. On the Republican side, it was Donald Trump versus everyone else.

The results revealed profound problems with the way New York runs elections. Thousands of voters showed up at the polls only to find their names had been removed from the books. As WNYC had already reported the day before, more than 100,000 voters were illegally purged by the city Board of Elections in Brooklyn alone.

Complaints poured into hotlines and politicians called for reform. Looking back, did they deliver?


https://www.wnyc.org/story/year-after-brooklyn-voter-purge-timeline-action-inaction/
You're being pretty lazy.
The polls open on Primary Day and voters begin reporting problems. WNYC receives complaints via email and through our website. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's voter hotline is flooded with calls. De Blasio issues a statement mid-day saying his office is receiving reports from voting rights monitors of "numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists." Stringer announces plans to audit the New York City Board of Elections.
How did they determine these buildings and they blocks are swayed towards Bernie? Where is there any mention in that timeline at all of proof that Bernie voters were targeted?
 
This is a workable hypothesis, but wholly unsubstantiated, and entirely untested. Did they collect the names of everyone who had a problem? Did they then check to see if these people all posted politically? Do we have knowledge of such an algorithm, and is it open-source?

In 2016, follow-up found that many Bernie supporters who alleged "voter suppression" in Arizona, for example, in the press, turned out to new voters who simply didn't fill out their voter registrations correctly, or Independent voters who didn't realize they had to be formally registered as a Democrat in order to vote in a Democratic primary (because in Presidential elections they do not have open primaries). Ignorantly, all these people immediately presumed, "Corruption! Voter suppression! Muh establishment!"

Meanwhile, the real cure to their woes would have been a wee bit of education.

You're being pretty lazy.

How did they determine these buildings and they blocks are swayed towards Bernie? Where is there any mention in that timeline at all of proof that Bernie voters were targeted?

Why else would 100,000 voters be illegally purged intentionally from the voter rolls?

I mean, we could assume they were purging Clinton supporters, but that would be ignoring the evidence of systemic fraud on Clinton's behalf we already know about.

Are you missing the fact that no one is denying that these 100,000 people were illegally purged, with the intent to do so?
 
Wait, wait, wait. I'm not going further than this until we clear something up.


This is a white girl. Voter suppression tactics have always focused on race, district, or other outwardly identifying traits in order to target and "suppress" votes from that population (not individuals); chiefly Republicans trying to suppress Democrats, Democrats trying to suppress Republicans, and more elaborate efforts focused on suppressing the populations known to vote one way or the other.

This is the Democratic Primary. You're telling me they took this girl's name off the ballot because they knew which Democrat she was going to vote for before she voted? Even if that's true for her, as a writer, how are they preternaturally predicting those who would and would not vote socialist?

Sounds like another dumb fembot journalist with a conspiracy theory confirmation bias, but I think I already know why you like her.

This comment was so likable until the last sentence.
 
This comment was so likable until the last sentence.

Wait, I thought Mick was just throwing chump bait for me.

You actually agree, that voter supression doesn't have to do with supressing votes, but needs a racial element?

That is some Orwellian shit right there. Words have meanings.
 
This is a workable hypothesis, but wholly unsubstantiated, and entirely untested. Did they collect the names of everyone who had a problem? Did they then check to see if these people all posted politically? Do we have knowledge of such an algorithm, and is it open-source?

In 2016, follow-up found that many Bernie supporters who alleged "voter suppression" in Arizona, for example, in the press, turned out to new voters who simply didn't fill out their voter registrations correctly, or Independent voters who didn't realize they had to be formally registered as a Democrat in order to vote in a Democratic primary (because in Presidential elections they do not have open primaries). Ignorantly, all these people immediately presumed, "Corruption! Voter suppression! Muh establishment!"

Meanwhile, the real cure to their woes would have been a wee bit of education.

You're being pretty lazy.

How did they determine these buildings and they blocks are swayed towards Bernie? Where is there any mention in that timeline at all of proof that Bernie voters were targeted?
I agree, I was just commenting on the fact that it is very likely possible rather then whether it happened or not. This could very well simply be hysteria.
 
Honestly.

Just make all voting online.

I mean if society has accepted to conduct 10x more sensitive personal info on the internet like bank accounts, tax filings, etc...then Im sure we can handle online voting.

Online voting would get rid of shit like this....sure new problems would arise but its better than this prehistoric crap.

Inb4 "but but they can hack the election".....Yes they could....they can do thay right now as well with our old school voting.

This sounds idiotic, in light of the OP.
 
Back
Top