California DMV has discovered it sent the Secretary of State’s Office 23,000 erroneous voter registrations

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

i don't post political threads here because my use of this forum isn't to make it a political soapbox but when i see obvious gaslighting like this against my state i obviously should come with a contesting view.

 

how is pointing out someone's biases in reporting and the fact that these sort of things are absolutely inconsequential/happen all the time not contributing to the topic? is anything that's not getting outraged over california offtopic here?

You didn't contest anything you simply said that there were other things also happening in regards to voting. You turned the conversation in a direction you wanted instead of the topic and provided absolutely no "contesting" points, in the post I quoted, except to call the OP a fascist. Saying "This stuff is worse focus on it" is not a good argument to make.

Do it again and it'll be warning points. No matter how much moral highground you think you have if it's off-topic it's off-topic.

 

(And if you have to respond to this/contest it do it in PM not here)

---

Winter, I'm pretty sure you already know what my verbal warning would be by now so I'll leave it at that. PM me if you're unsure.

[vla1ne]

My concern is that, regardless of the topic, you often focus exclusively on illegal immigrants. Sometimes it is relevant, but here, it just seems excessive. I want to bring up that this is a habit of yours, and I would like to encourage you to perhaps assess that you might concentrate on that particular issue a bit too much.

 

You recognized that no illegal immigrants have yet to be shown, only to immediately follow it up by saying that the Canadian man alone proves that it could have happened. It seems fairly contradictory to me, so I don't see how you're giving them the benefit of the doubt when you're using one man as evidence for the possibility of guilt for an indeterminate number of illegal immigrants.

I did mention them in the very first line, but i removed that before anybody ever thought to point it out to me (striker simply quoted before i finished the edit). there was going to be very little focus on illegal immigrants, but they most definitely factor into a proclaimed sanctuary state where 23K registry errors have been pulled up so far. I can't really recall a time where me bringing it up wasn't to make a valid point. You might see it differently, but that's not what i do.

 

Yeah, i said that because voter fraud is an actual issue in cali. This is 23000 screwups, and the person who broke the story (and happened to be affected) kinda destabilizes that claim a bit. It's called doubt. They have the benefit of it right now, i believe their claim, but i see that their story is on unsteady legs by virtue of the person breaking the story being a foreign citizen. Proving that even if there was no illegal immigrant, there was at least one foreign born citizen registered. Neither thing should happen, and what loophole one fell through, could very well affect the other as well.

 

 

I did argue the point I wished to make, which is that, 1. There are far more egregious examples of the republican party doing voter suppression that is literally relevant right now. And 2. This literally does not effect the ballot you are able to fill out (seriously I was able to vote for the Republican House Candidate anyways so the starter for the thread was false to begin with) making the starting post false, it won't effect congressional seats at all.

 

I straight up don't like these threads, the only reason I'm posting in this one is because I don't like people spreading false information and Melkor makes a lot of these threads, which could make someone who you know, is the target demographic age for this site believe he's an actual authority on these issues. Because if you do something for a long enough time, regardless if you're any good at it, people will start thinking that you've got some idea of what you're talking about.

 

1) The georgia one wasn't a DMV error so much as it was a voter registration error on the part of the registers. and unlike the cali case, where they let people slip through the cracks, they caught each mistake in georgia. While not handling them the way we'd like, they still actually caught the errors before the story ever broke. the two are mirror opposite stories  2) That's likely to do more with how lax california is on the voting front than winter. 

 

Sounds like fun to me. if it's false, point it out, if it's not, then the argument will win out. pretty simple stuff.

[Proto]

 

1) The georgia one wasn't a DMV error so much as it was a voter registration error on the part of the registers. and unlike the cali case, where they let people slip through the cracks, they caught each mistake in georgia. While not handling them the way we'd like, they still actually caught the errors before the story ever broke. the two are mirror opposite stories  2) That's likely to do more with how lax california is on the voting front than winter. 

 

Sounds like fun to me. if it's false, point it out, if it's not, then the argument will win out. pretty simple stuff.

 

1. I wasn't talking only about the Georgia one and Sakura told us to drop the issues regarding it in another thread so I'm just gonna ignore this bit.

 

2. Misinformation is misinformation. Also he was straight up calling for outrage over this misconception on his end. Getting mad over things you don't understand is bad so I'll have to hang this over his head sometime in the next debate like he uses the motor thing. I do actually get a bit of enjoyment on how many times people have been wrong in these threads though, so maybe I'll participate more often who knows.

[vla1ne]

1)deal. parallel threads and all that.

 

2) lax laws (and overcrowded DMV's) lead to the current problem, and mistaken registries does indeed lead to the problems he listed. it's not misinformation so much as it's California breaking it's own rules again. pretty much every other state would have the exact issues he's listed. california would too, but considering all the other voter issues, it makes sense that they'd let registry differences slide in favor of larger, more time consuming problems. 

[Proto]

That's a cool interpretation vla1ne, but it's literally not what his first post said. 

 

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article217891745.html

 

 

This is honestly outrageous. There are congressional seats that will decide the house race that would be swung by this bullshit

It's anger over misinformation and encouraging people who don't dive deep into reading these things or even might not even be involved in politics to just give it a quick glance over and think that we're literally swinging votes and get mad over it. And that's wrong. 

[vla1ne]

If they actually followed the rules, his post would be 100% on point though. primaries and the like would be greatly affected, and we've seen it happen before in California (bernie sanders got screwed over in a different, but related manner by the DNC, and even back in 2012, ron paul got boned by the GOP there). They do not follow the rules to the degree that they should, and that is a pretty large issue, because it can lead to issues like the one they're currently facing (or in reverse the issues that winter mentioned). addressing the issue years early is exactly what is needed.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Being in the voter rolls is the first step to being able to vote. I'm not even bringing up the parties yet

[Proto]

When did the article you linked say they weren't included in the voter rolls?

 

In a letter sent to the Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Wednesday, the department said the inaccurate customer information largely affected “voter preferences such as, vote-by-mail options, language and political party selections.

These all seem negligible especially from people of your position, voter rolls nowhere to be found.

 

 

If they actually followed the rules, his post would be 100% on point though. primaries and the like would be greatly affected, and we've seen it happen before in California (bernie sanders got screwed over in a different, but related manner by the DNC, and even back in 2012, ron paul got boned by the GOP there). They do not follow the rules to the degree that they should, and that is a pretty large issue, because it can lead to issues like the one they're currently facing (or in reverse the issues that winter mentioned). addressing the issue years early is exactly what is needed.

Name one state when you are unable to vote for the opposing party in a GENERAL election if you are registered as a member of another party. Because it is to my understanding that a majority if not all states allow full freedom in voting for whom you feel like in the general election, not the primaries. Because congressional seats straight up are not included in the primaries and we are nowhere near primary time. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Maybe they do it differently in CA, but if you're getting a mail ballot, you're on the roll. 

It would be interesting to see which district these are concentrated in. 

[Proto]

Okay, but nothing in the article mentioned anyone being removed from the roll as a consequence. 

[The_Red_Guy]

This is why I hate my tax walruses being mispent. Why must I always have wasted walruses when people can't do their jobs sheez luoise.

[vla1ne]

I'm pretty sure congressional districts do actually have primaries. they can also have the option of nominating conventions though, so i can't say 100% what district has chosen what exactly in a state i don't live in. That said, i'm pretty sure his congressional statement includes the senate seats that are highly coveted. and if i recall, my own state just had a couple of primary races conclude. winter's point stands if multiple districts choose to have primaries over nominating conventions, but i'll admit i'm not sure which one cali has more of.

 

that said, if you don't make it past the primaries/ nomination convention, you don'g even get to play a part in the general elections, so by that merit, swapping parties in a primary district would still have the exact same effect that winter has stated,

[Phantom Roxas]

At least for me, I didn't have a dedicated congressional primary. It was simply that voting for my congressional representative was rolled in as a part of the larger June primaries. We have top two-primaries, where instead of the winning Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate move on to the general election, the two candidates who receive the most votes go on. So there will be a fair number of contests in the general election where both candidates are Democrats.

 

In cases like that, then I would think that switching voters' parties would be far more detrimental in the primaries, because while you can vote with your party in that primary, if you're a Republican in California, your only options are Democrats anyway, given the nature of the top-two primaries. You can still vote for them, it's just probably not going to be who you want either way.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Okay, but nothing in the article mentioned anyone being removed from the roll as a consequence. 

It's more about being added to the roll than removed 

[Dad]

It's more about being added to the roll than removed

 

So it's fake outrage.

[vla1ne]

At least for me, I didn't have a dedicated congressional primary. It was simply that voting for my congressional representative was rolled in as a part of the larger June primaries. We have top two-primaries, where instead of the winning Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate move on to the general election, the two candidates who receive the most votes go on. So there will be a fair number of contests in the general election where both candidates are Democrats.

 

In cases like that, then I would think that switching voters' parties would be far more detrimental in the primaries, because while you can vote with your party in that primary, if you're a Republican in California, your only options are Democrats anyway, given the nature of the top-two primaries. You can still vote for them, it's just probably not going to be who you want either way.

There's a lot of different ways that people do them. Usually it's primaries style, since it's the simplest, others have conventions, some just throw everybody onto the ballot and hope for the best, ect. in either case, Twisting up the registry has a lot of issues of it's own besides just primaries.