Certified results confirm voter registration drop / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, October 29, 2012

Certified results confirm voter registration drop

October 29, 2012

Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew on Monday released the certified numbers of registered voters for the county, and it has decreased from 83,174 in October 2008 to 78,752 now.

That is a drop of 4,422 voters, or about a 5 percent decline.

Here are the numbers of registered voters by political party from 2008 and 2012:

• Democrats: 29,144; 27,194 (decrease of 1,950).

• Republicans: 24,362; 22,706 (decrease of 1,656).

• Unaffiliated: 28,816; 28,028 (decrease of 788).

• Libertarian: 754; 759 (increase of 5)

• Reform: 101; 52 (decrease of 49)

• Americans Elect: (didn’t exist in 2008); 13.

If you want to beat the crowd on Election Day, which is Nov. 6, advance voting continues this week amid seasonable weather.

Here’s the schedule for advance voting this week:

• Douglas County Courthouse, 11th and Massachusetts streets: 8 a.m.-7 p.m. Tuesday through Friday. Additional hours at the courthouse will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday. The last time for advance voting at the courthouse is 8 a.m. to noon Monday, Nov. 5.

• Brandon Woods Smith Center, 4730 Brandon Woods Terrace: 10 a.m.-7 p.m. Tuesday-Friday.

• Building 21 at Douglas County Fairgrounds, 2110 Harper St.: 10 a.m.-7 p.m. Tuesday-Friday.

• Drive Room at Kansas University Burge Union, 1601 Irving Hill Road: 10 a.m.-7 p.m. Tuesday-Thursday.

• Lecompton City Hall, Eudora Recreation Center and Baldwin City Fire Department: 9 a.m.-3 p.m. Saturday.

Delicious
Digg
Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

consumer1 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Democrats must hate that they can only vote and register once. It used to be so easy to vote several times for your choice. Dang it!!

markoo 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Yeah, we're really ballin' our widdle eyes out. According to the Republican National Lawyers Association, there has only been 1 instance of conviction of someone of voter fraud in our state in 2004:

http://www.rnla.org/survey.asp#ks

Kobach is completely full of it:

http://www.kansas.com/2011/03/02/1742704/waiting-for-evidence.html

From this recent study:

http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/

A little math:

Among 600,000,000 votes cast, only 2,068 ALLEGED voter election fraud occurred. That's a .000003 incidence. Holy crap! I'm so glad we're on top of that high rate with our new laws.

But wait, it gets sooo much better!

Out of that alleged voter fraud, only 30.6% or .306 chance of voter fraud actually occurred. That's a .000001 incidence of ALL voter fraud or .0001% occurrence.

And in-person voter fraud, that's even lower - a .000000001 or .0000001% occurrence.

Holy crap! Call the police! Call the Feds! Round up all the 0.0000001 percenters out there!!!!!!!!!!

jhawkinsf 7 months, 2 weeks ago

My car window was broken at least a dozen times while living in California, yet only one person was ever caught and convicted. According to your logic, the other eleven instances were either alleged or never really happened. Or did it only have a .000000001 chance of happening. But, but, but ... I distinctly recall paying someone to repair the window.

BTW - Instances of broken windows are so common out there that people don't even report them to the police. I mean, why should they? The police are too busy with other matters, like murder and such. So if it's unreported, did it happen, or should I just add a couple of more zeros?

none2 7 months, 2 weeks ago

So what is your point? Any topic for which a problem must exist, we should never rely on reported information unless we inflate it by a particular factor?

If voter fraud is such an important topic that has led to rampant lawlessness and elections where the wrong person has come into a position that they were not elected to, then why don't we do a more fool proof system? ID can be faked. Let's record fingerprints and/or retinal scans at the time of registration and at the time of voting. We can then go back and get accurate information as to just how rampant voter fraud actually is. I'm sure it must be significant given how conservatives hold it so near and dear to their hearts.

jhawkinsf 7 months, 2 weeks ago

You are correct. If voter fraud were a huge problem, we should institute sweeping changes to make sure voter fraud is nipped in the bud. Conversely, if voter fraud is a relatively small problem, perhaps we institute a relatively minor solution, such as providing an ID.

markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago

"Conversely, if voter fraud is a relatively small problem, perhaps we institute a relatively minor solution, such as providing an ID."

.0000001% chance? How much more minor can you get?

Here's some fun facts:

The odds of drowning in a bathtub: 685,000 to 1 Therefore, it's only logical to outlaw all bathtubs. Or perhaps that's too strong - we should just, umm, monitor people in bathtubs, everyone, in order to prevent this from happening.

Odds of being killed on a 5-mile bus trip: 500,000,000 to 1 It's only logical to therefore ban all buses. I really don't see this any other way, based on your logic.

Odds of being killed sometime in the next year in any sort of transportation accident: 77 to 1 . Crap. It's only logical that we should just ban ALL transportation. These odds are amazingly high, especially in comparison to voter fraud odds.

Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1 It's only logical that we shield ourselves in bullet-proof, explosive-proof bubbles and not leave our residencies, or something like that. We simply cannot afford to take a chance on this.

http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm

I just don't see what else we can do here. With such minor statistical probabilities amongst us at every turn, we just need to create more laws to prevent such minor probable occurrences assaulting our very existence.......

jhawkinsf 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Numbers can be fun to play with. Of course, you're making the assumption that you have all the numbers. But let's suppose just one fraudulent vote got past you and your analysis. Your argument would then be that even with the reworked numbers, the odds would still be so small, that no action needs to be taken. My argument is that all of you numbers would be wrong. And if two voters slipped by, you could rework your numbers and I would again simply say your numbers are wrong. And if it is three fraudulent voters ... Tell me, Markoo, how many fraudulent votes slipped past your analysis?

Speaking of statistical improbabilities, ever buy a lottery ticket?

markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago

" Of course, you're making the assumption that you have all the numbers."

You have any reason to think those odds are incorrect?

" But let's suppose just one fraudulent vote got past you and your analysis. Your argument would then be that even with the reworked numbers, the odds would still be so small, that no action needs to be taken."

No, action has already been taken prior to the ridiculous voter fraud law that already ensures a very high probability of avoiding fraud in the first place. The statistics obvously bear this out time and again.

" My argument is that all of you numbers would be wrong."

And unicorns are also real.

Very little difference between our two statements. Both are difficult to accept without supporting evidence.

" And if two voters slipped by, you could rework your numbers and I would again simply say your numbers are wrong"

And I would say monkeys fly out of your behind, just simply because I say so and again both of our statements have difficulties of revealing supporting evidence.

We could go on and on with silly, unsupported statements and asinine hypotheticals if you like. The trouble is, it doesn't really help your argument much.

Actually, it's making your argument look worse every time you say something ridiculous like this.

"... Tell me, Markoo, how many fraudulent votes slipped past your analysis?"

You mean how many fraudulent votes slipped past the Republican National Lawyers Association? Who knows, all we know is that there has only been 1 conviction. Again, how many UFOs have stolen our kids on the planet? What are we going to do about that?

Again, you're not helping your argument much here.

"Speaking of statistical improbabilities, ever buy a lottery ticket?"

Nope. Nor do I gamble. Judging by your particularly strange logic, I'm guessing you buy a few hundred thousand tickets a week?

jhawkinsf 7 months, 2 weeks ago

One of my earlier comments mentioned the car windows broken and not reported to any authority. According to official statistics, it didn't happen. They could guess at how much or how little that happens. But in the end, it's just a guess.

Do I think your odds are incorrect? No. I do believe that the numbers you entered to arrive at your statistical analysis is based on part of the truth, the other part being unknown and unknowable. A guess.

None2 suggested extraordinary means be used to solve this problem, if this is such a rampant problem. I never suggested the problem was huge. In fact, I think it's a pretty small problem. And I think the ID requirement is a measured response to that small problem. If you have a problem with that, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

BTW - I don't have monkeys flying out my butt nor do I buy a few hundred thousand lottery tickets each week. But I do have enough common sense to know that there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. Have fun with your calculator.

markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago

blink

Ahh, I see. Definitely the smartest way to create laws - create them with absolutely no evidence whatsoever statistically speaking in order to, umm, prevent that amazingly infinitesimally small chance of it occurring.

By that logic, I see no reason why we shouldn't prepare for universal world war - the chance of aliens attacking us, I'm sure, holds probably the same statistic. Well, perhaps a little smaller, but I guess when you get past the fourth or fifth 0 before the decimal, it's all gravy ain't it?

Perhaps we should all prepare for all possible pre-emptive strikes by all eeevil governments. Actually, that has a much larger statistical probability, so we need to essentially invade every single country, preferably those of Arab and Muslim background of course, since they house the most dangerous terrorists that have a chance of attacking us. And logically, of course, we must assume all foreign Muslim or 3rd world countries since they all house potentially dangerous individuals who could attack us.

Gosh, I just love this logical argument of yours. This is fun to create laws with the most flimsy and statistically weak evidence of it occurring, the possibilities are just endless.....

Or we could stop pretending to make excuses for an absolutely absurd law and come to terms with the fact of why it was created in the first place. And that fact has absolutely nothing to do with your silly, absurd rationale.

notajayhawk 7 months, 2 weeks ago

"there has only been 1 instance of conviction of someone of voter fraud in our state in 2004"

Which is exactly one more than the number of documented 'disenfranchised' voters.

jhawkinsf 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Without breaking out my slide rule to get exact percentages, it does appear that the decreases of registered Democrats and Republicans is about the same. Interestingly, the decrease in those who identify as unaffiliated appears to be much less by percentage and actual numbers. First thought that comes to mind is that people seem to be disenchanted with Democrats and Republicans.

notajayhawk 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Very close. Democrats dropped 6.69%, Republicans dropped 6.79%.

consumer1 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You know Jhawkinsf, that is a very good point. my sarcasam takes a back seat to your well thought out logic. I appologize for my negative comment. Thanks

CrumpD 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I wonder what the numbers would be if it was reported correct. My husband who happens to be a soldier and was deployed at the time that he registered was shocked when his registration card came back as "Unaffiliated" when he has never registered that way and didn't this time either. Makes me wonder how many others in the military were registered like my husband.

jhawkinsf 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Sounds like you're suggesting fraud. For what purpose? Simply to deny your husband the right to vote in a primary, but of course, that could easily be remedied. Or maybe your husband checked the wrong box. It's been known to happen.

jafs 7 months, 2 weeks ago

If one is registered unaffiliated, one can vote in the D primaries in KS without changing one's registration.

One can also vote in the R primaries, but will have to change the registration to R - it's easy to do, and can in fact be done at the same time one goes to vote in that primary.

Armstrong 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Don't forget vote Nov 7 Obama fans !

jhawkinsf 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Bad form, sir. Ironic that you would resort to such un-American tactics while your avatar flies the American flag in the background. Shame on you.

deec 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Along the same lines, a guy I work with stated it would be all right with him if the power stayed out in New York and they weren't ale to vote, since New Yorkers live in a different world.