Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Choice Point in CA?! THOUSANDS already kicked off of voter rolls.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:57 AM
Original message
Choice Point in CA?! THOUSANDS already kicked off of voter rolls.
Oh my, it's those darned "glitches" again. :grr:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rejected29mar29...

New ID System May Block Voters
A statewide database has rejected otherwise valid registrations because of computer glitches or slight discrepancies in the spelling of names.
By Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writer
March 29, 2006

SACRAMENTO Thousands of Californians who register to vote or update their records may not receive sample ballots or be able to vote as absentees because of the state's new method of verifying identities, election officials say.

A new statewide database designed by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to authenticate voter registrations has blocked otherwise valid registrations because of computer glitches, slight discrepancies in spelling or incomplete applications.

<snip>

In Los Angeles County, the database rejected 14,629 people 43% of those who registered from Jan. 1 to March 15. Officials are trying to resolve the problems in time for municipal elections April 11 in 14 cities in the county. They say the challenge will be far larger for the June 6 primary, which will involve many more voters.

<snip>

Ashley Snee Giovannettone, spokeswoman for McPherson, who oversees elections, said a sampling of statewide registrations found that 74% were immediately verified. She said state election law requires county officials to resolve the discrepancies for the others, which might mean fixing a typo or contacting the voter to obtain missing information.

<snip>

State Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), who chairs the Senate elections committee and is running in the Democratic primary to challenge McPherson, said: "We're looking at the potential for thousands and thousands of people to lose the right to vote."


So are rethugs giving themselves an instant 26% lead? What's next?! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. So, does McPherson owe Choicepoint or Diebold any favors?
I smell something very rotten here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Everything about that guy is rotten.
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Barrett Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
3. Honest Accurate Voting & Elections
I don't look at it from a partisan viewpoint. I want election machines that are accurate, non-hackable, and provide a paper verification ballot and are above reproach. We need the same from voters and I see nothing wrong with verifying the legitimacy of voters just as with the machines. I see nothing wrong with requiring voter ID either.

We need honest elections .... period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Why, has there been a big problem with the voters? You know, cases
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 11:46 AM by John Q. Citizen
where voters have ripped of elections by voting illegally?

I haven't seen any articles about that. Have you?

I do know that when Florida and Ohio (2 other Republican Secs. of State) did simular things they denied the right to vote of hundreds of thousands of people, and it benefited bush by putting him in office illegally, twice.

Don't be fooled by what they say, look at what they do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. You know thats not what their doing John. Have you been around the last
six years?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Barrett Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Two Rights...make a right.
I go back to my original point. Two rights make a right. But two wrongs don't make a right. I would have no problem providing ID before I vote and would encourage it. I am working hard for Common Cause and others on voting integrity, but would be a hypocrit if I said I didn't care if illegals voted as long as they vote Democratic. It's about integrity of the process, not winning and the end never justifies the means. I agree that the elections have been very suspect since 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. just as a point of information about the article
If I understand this rightly, it means exactly what the lede says: folks whose forms don't exactly match the database records will not be allowed to vote absentee. They will be allowed to vote in person if they present identification, or they can cast provisional ballots even if they don't present identification.

So far, that isn't as bad as Florida 2000. Like you, I don't object in principle to fair efforts to verify that someone is eligible to vote -- but after Florida 2000, I am pretty damn allergic to database-matching myself. I think the exact-match standard is just ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
43. We Know What they Do With "Provisional" Ballots
:hurts:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #43
67. in Ohio in 2004, they counted over 3/4 of them
and, yes, it should have been even more, if Blackwell hadn't imposed arbitrarily restrictive rules. Still, many Ohio election officials accepted and counted provisional ballots in good faith -- over 120,000 of them. Nationwide, over a million of them, about 68% of all provisional ballots cast. That's a lot of votes.

If anyone here is "educating" people that their provisional ballots are unlikely to be counted, then please stop. There are already enough folks discouraging citizens from voting. They do not need reinforcements!

Now, that said, obviously it's important to get the registration lists right before the election, so that people aren't asked to jump through additional hoops for no good reason, and with considerable risk that their legitimate votes still won't be counted. I am not encouraging complacency: I am warning against fatalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. ID's are easily faked. Poll workers tend to be seniors who don't
necessarily know how to spot a fake ID

To make your system fool proof we need a national biometric card system. Take DNA from all voters at the poll. Then there's the problem of identical twins or triplets committing voter fraud. (identical DNA)

I ask you again, what is the problem you are trying to fix. Do you have any data on a lot of people voting illegally? Do you believe there is a problem with non-citizens or non-registered citizen voting?

Or is it just a solution to a non-problem?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
42. I had to show a photo ID and a voter registration card
which is not supposed to be the rule for repeat voters and my machine still defaulted
to GWB 5 times to help him win the election. I say we ship the voting machines to
Iraq to stay the course and let the insurgents shoot at them. I notice that the Israelis
all voted with paper ballots in their last election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. Surprise! Isn't this what Choicepoint excels at? Isn't that exactly why
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 11:24 AM by glitch
they are hired? I wouldn't doubt it.

I would bet cash money the "statewide database" is outsourced to a private vendor. It's weird that the LA Times doesn't mention who it is.

I would definitely NOT bet against it being Choicepoint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I'm going to call and ask. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. I see below you called and it's Rexall or something - NOW how much do you
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 06:44 PM by glitch
want to bet they have the same RW roots as Choicepoint?

Damn! edit to add: damn fine work getting the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. You know what my bet would be, glitch.
There was 'way too much tap dancing for this to be a straight answer.

Or else, why was the nice young man at the reception desk forbidden to discuss this with me.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
31. So true. They can't help but act guilty. Bet they long for the old days,
before active citizen participation. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liam_laddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. In Ohio...
Every BoE office, 88 in OH, is connected to the SOS office by a dedicated fiber-optic line.
Hmmmm...are other states similarly equipped?

Who's to guarantee that the original data entry is correct? That is, if the data is re-typed
by a human, error can certainly occur. Or is there "translation" software which will create
a digital record from a scanned image? Is the database digital images of the original
hand-signed card? Microfilm translations? I've no idea what the techniques are. I am
just very leery of how this scrubbing is done, as well as the quality of the original record.

In Ohio, the rule is: If voters miss two quadrennial elections in a row, they are mailed a
card telling them to re-register via the card. if card is not returned (30 days?) to the county
BoE, the voter is removed. Of course, partisan clerks might choose to ignore that rule...or
scrub someone by mistake, intentional or not. There were too many voters scrubbed in the
last couple cycles to not be suspicious about the system, IMHO.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. oh, exact-match is a farce, for sure
Even setting aside human error, a system that assumes that "Sam" isn't the same person as "Samuel" -- even though "Sam" and "Samuel" have the same Social Security number -- has a problem. (As I understand it from the Brennan Center, that is one implication of the CA policy.)

Now, this problem is sort of the opposite of Florida 2000 as I understand it. There, registered voters were checked against felon lists (and scrubbed if they "matched") with far too loose a matching criterion, and seemingly no manual intervention to override even the most egregious false matches. In the California case, prospective registered voters are checked against a master list with far too strict a matching criterion -- which has the same effect of reducing the electorate. On the plus side, there does seem to be a good faith effort (at least in some jurisdictions) to correct these errors. Also, importantly, as I understand it, folks who submit these problematic registration applications by mail are considered registered and can vote if they provide identification, or can vote provisionally without ID. That is far from a failsafe solution, but it helps.

Check out the Brennan Center roundup, with links to summaries for each state: http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/HAVA/sv...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. Called McPherson's office and the guy told me he's not
authorized to disclose the vendor but has to have someone else call me back.

I'll try the LA Times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. Okay, I talked to a spokesman for the SOS's office.
I asked him directly if Choicepoint is the vendor and he said no. He said the database uses DMV files in conjunction with a company's name that I never heard of but sounded like "Rexall Security Systems".

He also said that an exact match was not required and that, that part of the story was not accurate.

It sounds like they are getting a lot of heat over this because he was very willing to take time with me AND the person who answers the phone in that office has been instructed not to talk about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Good work! When the flak flies they always make nice... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
46. DMV
contractor:

http://www.gensa.com/successmcp.asp

appears to be a Sacramento company...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. Ashley Snee Giovannettone spins 74%
.740 would be an awsome batting average, but it stinks as a verification percentage.

And isn't it typical that a rethug would take negative news and spin it around? 74% instant verification sure sounds a hell of a lot better than a 26% rejection rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Could you believe that? Like she was proud of it.
"But that only puts us rethugs ahead by 26 percentage points."

For new registrations it's even worse -- 43%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
17. calif welcome to our world..from your friends in fla!!...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. We're all Floridians now. (Or soon will be...) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
21. K&RECOMMEND.(NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. I'm not sure if it's specifically Choicepoint.
Einsteinia had posted this in January. "ChoicePoint Responds":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

CEPN had submitted a letter to McPherson about the centralized database and ChoicePoint in particular:
http://www.electionassessment.org/Submissions/2005-06-2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. If it is, McPherson's spokesman blew it today because I asked
him pointblank, "Is the vendor Choicepoint?"

And he said, no.

I kept notes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Can we believe ANTHING they say?
Thank you for making those calls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I don't think so. So, I keep a paper trail of the calls.
If I'm wrong, fine, I'll cop to it.

If I'm right, I have a record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Having a record is a very good idea.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. Thanks sfexpat2000. What happened to our sunshine law?
I will check on the company you heard him mention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Thanks, rumpel. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
23. League of Women Voters letter to McBastard:
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA

801 12th Street, Suite 220, Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 442-7215 P Fax (916) 442-7362
Web site: www.lwvc.org P E-mail: lwvc@lwvc.org



March 28, 2006

The Honorable Bruce McPherson
Secretary of State of California
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Secretary McPherson:

The League of Women Voters of California is concerned that under new state procedures for adding registered voters to the CalVoter state database, it appears that a large number of registrations are being inappropriately rejected.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 requires each state to implement, by January 1, 2006, a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list. Recognizing that the state of California would not have such a database in place by that deadline, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the California Secretary of State entered into a memorandum of agreement to update and use the existing CalVoter registration system for HAVA compliance. Emergency regulations were adopted by the Secretary of State to implement that memorandum.

Judging from statistics compiled since the first of this year for Los Angeles County, most of the rejected registrations and re-registrations fall into one of two categories. One type of problem occurs when individuals provide a drivers license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number (SSN) on their registration form, but their name or birth date is not exactly the same as in the DMV records. Another type of problem occurs when individuals do not provide a drivers license number or the last four digits of their SSN on the registration form although their other information can be matched with DMV or other state agency records.

Since many registrations are in fact re-registrations prompted by a voters change of address, party, etc., many of these individuals have already been on the voter registration rolls in California. However, in both types of situation, the current system does not allow any of those individuals to be included in the statewide registration list.

We must object. Our procedures should guard against inappropriate elimination of legitimate voters from the system. It is not enough to allow them to cast a provisional ballot if they make it to the polls. Being excluded from the registration list means that they will not receive a sample ballot or a ballot pamphlet, they will not receive notice of the location of their polling places, and they will not be permitted to request an absentee ballot.

We hope that a resolution to this problem can be reached quickly. We urge you to find alternatives to the current rules (data standards and match criteria) for processing registrations. If possible, that would be done by administrative procedures available to you. However, if it proves that legislation is needed, the LWVC would support that approach.

Under HAVA, it is intended that information provided by other databases, such as DMV data, will supplement the information provided by voters when they register or re-register, thereby helping to correct an application so it can be processed and accepted, if the applicant is eligible, instead of rejected.

It is a well-known problem that mistakes are made in database administration and management. Applicants transpose or forget numbers and letters, and make other noncritical errors as well. Officials likewise inadvertently make data entry errors. Databases themselves maintain these errors over time, compounding problems if databases are compared and matched with each other.

A well-run system will use the wide variety of information that is available from a number of sources to make corrections in order to maintain an accurate system. If, for example, the applicant transposes digits in his or her drivers license number, as evidenced by the drivers license record, a correction is made and the application is processed.

The corollary is that a failure to match the applicant or his/her data with another database must not result in the rejection of the applicant. This is important for a variety of reasons. First, matching is not an eligibility requirement under HAVA or state law. Second, the database information is likely to have significant errors. The Social Security Administration acknowledges that its data is not foolproof, data entry and other errors in DMV and voter registration agencies are well known, and simple matching mistakesfrom the use of different forms of names to transposed or missing numbersare significant. Third, the absence of information does not suggest a problem. Only positive information of a disqualifying characteristic should result in the rejection of a voter in a database matching system. Rejection must be based on a positive match of the identity of the voter, and a positive match with a disqualifying characteristic.

In the voter registration context, the failure to find a match does not provide information that the voter is ineligible. If there is no match, the voter registration application should be processed on its own terms.

If the applicant is eligible to vote, then his or her name should be entered on the list. If necessary, the applicant can be placed on a pending list of individuals who receive the normal election materials and services but must provide identification (if a first-time voter) or swear to his or her identity in order to cast a normal ballot.

Uniform and nondiscriminatory practices are important for any process concerning the registration of voters. We must not go into this election season burdened by processes that disenfranchise voters.

Sincerely,

/signed/ Jacqueline Jacobberger
President
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
25. From State Sen. Bowen:
Thousands of voters dumped off Californias voting rolls
March 29th, 2006

I just learned of an alarming development in our fight for fair and transparent elections: The current Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, launched a statewide voter registration database system last year that will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in California.

More than 14,000 new voter registration and re-registration applications just from Los Angeles County were recently invalidated under this new stringent set of regulations and other counties are seeing similar results.

This is a 43% rejection rate! In fact, virtually all of these applications would have been accepted before Secretary McPherson rolled out his new statewide voter registration database. Typically rejection rates are 1-2%. This is outrageous.

And these applications were rejected for trivial matters a name or drivers license number not perfectly matching what was on file in the statewide database, for example. Or even technical system errors that prevented valid applications from being accepted.

Were talking about thousands of eligible voters, many of whom have been registered for years, being thrown off the voter rolls. Unless they correct these trivial errors with their local registrar, these fellow citizens wont receive sample ballots in the mail, notifying them of their polling place. They wont receive absentee ballots. In other words, it will be much more difficult for them to get their legitimate vote counted.

If eligible voters are prevented from registering to vote, I view that as a huge problem for our democracy Im sorry Secretary McPherson doesnt see it that way. We are aggressively looking into this serious issue and well keep you posted on what we find.

Debra


(Boldfacing is hers)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. Nick, you have a link for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Oops. Here's one:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
29. K&R........nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
32. This matters to the entire country! 55 Electoral Votes !!!!!!!!!
We have got to get Mc@#$%& out of that office!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
33. Don't forget that Bowen will be on Al Franken's show 3/31 at 9:30 am.
Sounds like she'll have more things to say than she had planned. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
34. ChoicePoint, eh?
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 09:00 PM by Jack Rabbit
The same people involved in the Florida 2000 election heist.

What was the glitch? Being Afro-American and having a name similar to a felon in another state or just registering Democratic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I don't know that it's ChoicePoint that's created this mess.
Although we could use their name as a verb and say that California has been "ChoicePointed".

The "glitch" may have been RWD (Registering While Democrat).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
36. I do know that Choicepoint operates in CA, because I got a call
from them to verify previous employment of a former employee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Do you know who hired them?
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 10:14 PM by nicknameless
Your new employer?
Does that make them more likely to be the company creating this voter database?

:shrug:

(Edit: D'oh!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. They called me, as the former employer of someone they were checking
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 10:12 PM by bleever
up on, in all likelihood a pre-employment check.

And I spent some time on their website, searching through all their various branches and divisions, but didn't find anything of interest.


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I'll ask Bowen's office who created the database. Not sure they'll know.
Especially given sfexpat2000's phone conversations, I think the rethugs want to keep specifics hushed.

(Sorry I misunderstood your last post. My brain is in freak-out mode.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Here is an interesting LATimes blog on Choicepoint & DMV dec 2005
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 10:41 PM by rumpel
http://goldenstateblog.latimes.com/goldenstate/2005/11/...


on edit:

Who gave these companies the right to make a buck (tons of it) on my back, while they can crush me as a consumer or potential borrower, facilitating identity theft along the way, confuse information and who knows who can plant information, that may even disqualify me to vote. These people can destroy or make your life. The whole data system needs to be heavily regulated: make it so they can not sell data.




:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. That sounds very ominous.
It's claimed that this database is based in large part on DMV records.

:(


And what is Lockyer's problem? He voted for Ahhnold, and now this? Time for him to switch parties?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. the blog I think is from Hiltzik
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 10:44 PM by rumpel
corrected his spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. According to BradBlog, ***Diebold*** is writing the database software.
See reply #50
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
50. The answer: DIEBOLD !!!!!!!!!!!! Not ChoicePoint.
According to BradBlog entry today:

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002619.htm

DEMOCRACY CRUMBLING: New Electronic Voter Registration Database Rejects 43% of New Los Angeles Voter Applications! 26% Rejected State-Wide in California!
Applications That Don't Match EXACTLY With DMV Records are Automatically Dumped by New System!
California's League of Women Voters Sends Letter of Objection to Secretary of State

We've been dreading this. And you're not gonna like it either. It's an entirely new can of worms in the Electronic Rape of American Electoral Democracy. The next wave -...

We've been dreading this. And you're not gonna like it either.

It's an entirely new can of worms in the Electronic Rape of American Electoral Democracy. The next wave -- beyond the electronic voting machines, and perhaps even more alarming -- in the arsenal of those out to game the system for partisan advantage.

No matter what we do, no matter how many successes, the Bad Guys -- those who hate Democracy and American Values -- are always one step ahead of us, it seems.

The horrifically written and, of course, ironically named "Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002" requires, as of January 1, 2006, each state to implement "a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list."

And guess who's writing the software for it, in California, Ohio and elsewhere? That's right...our old friends at Diebold, Inc.

While we've put off reporting on much of this until now -- as prompted by story out today (in the MSM of all places!) -- we've been working on an extremely disturbing part of this story for some time relating directly to all of this out in, you guessed it, Ohio. We've yet to run the story for a number of reasons. But we hope to have much more on it, in all its troubling detail, in the not-too-distant future.

For today, however, we'll stick to the report coming out of California in this morning's Los Angeles Times which says that, since the first of year, when California's new computerized Voter Registration Database has gone state-wide, Los Angeles County has "rejected 14,629 people 43% of those who registered from Jan. 1 to March 15."

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. So, McPherson's liar LIED OUTRIGHT when he called me?
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 01:01 AM by sfexpat2000
:mad:

Edit: really, WHY BOTHER TO CALL BACK!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. And really, are we surprised? Mc#$%& has lied about everything.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. What is surprising is that he's bothering to lie.
Remember those public hearings with no public that he didn't even bother to attend?

I'm REALLY MAD tonight. But tomorrow, we need to regroup.

They WILL NOT steal California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. But Mc#$%& ALWAYS lies. Maybe it's a psychosis. Maybe it's an attempt
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 02:24 AM by nicknameless
to scuttle (like the roach he is) under the radar, even if only momentarily.

I'm so furious, I can hardly see straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. I'd like to know how Brad determined the Diebold connection.
I was too mad to read his article very well. It will hafta wait until tomorrow.

They are very serious about this. The liar who called me today was 'way too smooth for a state government spokes person unless he was hired by Tony Soprano. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. It looked like he started following the story in Ohio.
I'll have to reread it as well.

I almost wonder if it was a diebold person who called you back. Apparently Mc@#$%& is VERY cozy with that company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. They went to a lot of trouble to call me back and lie.
They are being very careful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. I hope you'll be careful too.
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 02:53 AM by nicknameless
I wonder if they're trying to find out who's onto them. :(

Edit: I wonder if complaints to his office automatically get callers rejected by Diebold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. I just HOPE they try it. We have enough media outlets
to turn it on them.

I don't put anything past these guys. I remember thinking I was paranoid when they were smearing Kevin.

But, no. We're watching a trainwreck in progress. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. Haven't the motives for taking down Shelley become incredibly transparent?
Look what they've done to this state in just one year. Un-effing-believable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. I guess I'm a believer now!
I just hope we can get Debra in -- that it's not too late.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. I hope we can get her in too.
She's not the only Dem in the Legislature, certainly more will be awakened by this news.
Those spineless wonders need to stand up and fight back. They let Mc@#$%& in to begin with.
They had every right to keep Cathy Mitchell in that office, but they caved in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. Let's make a pact to work for Debra. She's stood tall
against this coup.

I'm still to mad to think but, there are things we can do to help out.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. She is the best shot we have for restoring democracy in California.
I'm sure she'll let us know what she needs to keep fighting.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-30-06 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
51. Bradblod is reporting that DIEBOLD is writing the software.
Edited on Thu Mar-30-06 12:52 AM by sfexpat2000
OMFG.

They didn't even buy us dinner first.

:wow:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


edit: link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 19th 2018, 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC