Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ filed their brief and it tears Youngkin’s arguments apart.

But what was amazing to me was apparently the PW county election office looked into the voting history of 200 or so names they got. 75% had never tried to vote (so they didn’t investigate further) and of the other 25% every single one of them was eligible to vote.

Nuts. And these are the same people who would be running the mass deportation. They can’t even put together a list of 1600 illegal immigrants without including hundreds of US citizens. But sure, they’ll round up ten million illegals without mistakenly picking up any citizens.

The state level data is not as good as what the federal government has. Anytime you clean voter rolls the accuracy rate is never going to be 100%. The real question is how many of the people removed were citizens vs non-citizens. We need more granular data to determine whether the process is accurate enough or not. For example, let’s assume that the accuracy rate for identifying citizens is 99.9% and the accuracy rate for Identifying non-citizens is 50%. We will also assume that 99.9% of registered voters are citizens and 0.1% are non-citizens. In this scenario, screening one million registered voters will identify 1,499 non-citizen voters. 500 (1,000 * 0.5) of which are actually non-citizens and 999 (999k * 0.001) that are incorrectly identified as non-citizens. Even though the process is 99.9% accurate at identifying actual US citizens, approximately 67% of the people on the list will be citizens due to the much larger population size. The actual false positive and false negative rates number are very important to determine whether this process was sloppy or conducted properly.

IMO, the process needs to be calibrated so that the number of citizens incorrectly identified as non citizens is lower than the number of non-citizens correctly identified. So any process that is removing more people registered illegally than not would be acceptable. We don’t have enough data on this voter roll purge in particular to determine the percentage that are citizens. However, the timing of this voter roll purge was too close to Election Day and Youngkin should have done this a year ago so people have plenty of time to reregister if they are incorrectly removed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia is not going to win an appeal. Voters aren’t supposed to be purged from the rolls this close to an election. Bunch of dipshits thought the deadline didn’t apply to them. Give me a break.

Indeed.

The Hill: “It will likely set up the case to be heard by the Supreme Court.” As stated earlier.

Explain how that works when the Appeals Court rejects your appeal.

You don’t understand what an appeal is? Hint, you don’t appeal if the court found in your favor.

So Youngkin was rejected/enjoined by the District Court, appealed, and the Appellate Court rejected his appeal. What happens next and in what timeframe?

Youngkin will appeal to SCOTUS. Immediately, because he has to restore voters by Wednesday. Late Monday or sometime Tuesday, depending on how fast Youngkin files, SCOTUS will deny cert, unsigned per curium.

I hope so, but Roberts sure does love denying him some voting rights.

Quoting myself since I called it. Disgusting.
https://wapo.st/4e7zRZf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia is not going to win an appeal. Voters aren’t supposed to be purged from the rolls this close to an election. Bunch of dipshits thought the deadline didn’t apply to them. Give me a break.

Indeed.

The Hill: “It will likely set up the case to be heard by the Supreme Court.” As stated earlier.

Explain how that works when the Appeals Court rejects your appeal.

You don’t understand what an appeal is? Hint, you don’t appeal if the court found in your favor.

So Youngkin was rejected/enjoined by the District Court, appealed, and the Appellate Court rejected his appeal. What happens next and in what timeframe?

Youngkin will appeal to SCOTUS. Immediately, because he has to restore voters by Wednesday. Late Monday or sometime Tuesday, depending on how fast Youngkin files, SCOTUS will deny cert, unsigned per curium.

I hope so, but Roberts sure does love denying him some voting rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ filed their brief and it tears Youngkin’s arguments apart.

But what was amazing to me was apparently the PW county election office looked into the voting history of 200 or so names they got. 75% had never tried to vote (so they didn’t investigate further) and of the other 25% every single one of them was eligible to vote.

Nuts. And these are the same people who would be running the mass deportation. They can’t even put together a list of 1600 illegal immigrants without including hundreds of US citizens. But sure, they’ll round up ten million illegals without mistakenly picking up any citizens.

The state level data is not as good as what the federal government has. Anytime you clean voter rolls the accuracy rate is never going to be 100%. The real question is how many of the people removed were citizens vs non-citizens. We need more granular data to determine whether the process is accurate enough or not. For example, let’s assume that the accuracy rate for identifying citizens is 99.9% and the accuracy rate for Identifying non-citizens is 50%. We will also assume that 99.9% of registered voters are citizens and 0.1% are non-citizens. In this scenario, screening one million registered voters will identify 1,499 non-citizen voters. 500 (1,000 * 0.5) of which are actually non-citizens and 999 (999k * 0.001) that are incorrectly identified as non-citizens. Even though the process is 99.9% accurate at identifying actual US citizens, approximately 67% of the people on the list will be citizens due to the much larger population size. The actual false positive and false negative rates number are very important to determine whether this process was sloppy or conducted properly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ filed their brief and it tears Youngkin’s arguments apart.

But what was amazing to me was apparently the PW county election office looked into the voting history of 200 or so names they got. 75% had never tried to vote (so they didn’t investigate further) and of the other 25% every single one of them was eligible to vote.

Nuts. And these are the same people who would be running the mass deportation. They can’t even put together a list of 1600 illegal immigrants without including hundreds of US citizens. But sure, they’ll round up ten million illegals without mistakenly picking up any citizens.

The state level data is not as good as what the federal government has. Anytime you clean voter rolls the accuracy rate is never going to be 100%. The real question is how many of the people removed were citizens vs non-citizens. We need more granular data to determine whether the process is accurate enough or not. For example, let’s assume that the accuracy rate for identifying citizens is 99.9% and the accuracy rate for Identifying non-citizens is 50%. We will also assume that 99.9% of registered voters are citizens and 0.1% are non-citizens. In this scenario, screening one million registered voters will identify 1,499 non-citizen voters. 500 (1,000 * 0.5) of which are actually non-citizens and 999 (999k * 0.001) that are incorrectly identified as non-citizens. Even though the process is 99.9% accurate at identifying actual US citizens, approximately 67% of the people on the list will be citizens due to the much larger population size. The actual false positive and false negative rates number are very important to determine whether this process was sloppy or conducted properly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DOJ filed their brief and it tears Youngkin’s arguments apart.

But what was amazing to me was apparently the PW county election office looked into the voting history of 200 or so names they got. 75% had never tried to vote (so they didn’t investigate further) and of the other 25% every single one of them was eligible to vote.

Nuts. And these are the same people who would be running the mass deportation. They can’t even put together a list of 1600 illegal immigrants without including hundreds of US citizens. But sure, they’ll round up ten million illegals without mistakenly picking up any citizens.

Anonymous wrote:DOJ filed their brief and it tears Youngkin’s arguments apart.

But what was amazing to me was apparently the PW county election office looked into the voting history of 200 or so names they got. 75% had never tried to vote (so they didn’t investigate further) and of the other 25% every single one of them was eligible to vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She had a responsibility to confirm her citizenship with the local registrar within fourteen days of notification. Why didn’t she do so?

Why did the DMV suddenly decide she wasn't a citizen despite having been born and raised here?

Anonymous wrote:Trumpkin’s entire defense is that he is not removing anyone that is entitled to be on the voter rolls that’s why I suggested either he should drop the lawsuit or else stop being governor if it turns out he was wrong.

What’s wrong with a little accountability?