Election clerk suspended after error 'purged over 100,000 Brooklyn voters' from rolls

[timosman]

https://www.rt.com/usa/340581-brookl...purged-voters/

A New York City elections official has been suspended without pay after a bureaucratic error allegedly resulted in the removal of over 100,000 Brooklyn voters’ names from the city rolls during the state's presidential primary, according to a report.
Sources told the Daily News that Borough Office Chief Clerk Diane Haslett-Rudianoshe skipped one of the steps meant to stop the system from purging eligible voters. The voting books need to be purged from time to time to eliminate people who pass away, move to new locations or become ineligible for other reasons. This eventually resulted in voters being improperly removed.

She was suspended “without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn,” the city's Board of Elections (BOE) reportedly said in a statement.

Haslett-Rudiano’s immediate suspension is set to remain in place pending an internal investigation.

"The board will fully cooperate with the investigations currently being conducted by the Office of the New York State Attorney General and the Office of the New York City Comptroller," BOE added in a news release cited by WABC News.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said his office launched an investigation after a state voter hotline received over 700 complaints.

"The administration of the voter rolls in Brooklyn is of major concern to our office and is a focus of our investigation," Schneiderman said.

At least 54,000 Democratic voters vanished from the rolls in Brooklyn on Tuesday, according to the New York Post.

Some 917,508 residents were registered as ‘active’ voters in November, the newspaper reported. By April, that number had plummeted to 853,687, however, meaning that more than 63,000 people would have had to be classed as ‘inactive’. The number of ‘inactive’ voters meanwhile only grew by 9,000, leaving some 54,000 Brooklyn voters unaccounted for.

Director of the Black Institute Bertha Lewis told the New York Post that there needs to be a probe, adding.

"We know that 300K-plus have been purged without explanation,” she added.

Brooklyn-born Bernie Sanders, who lost to Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, has urged officials to explain the discrepancies in the voting polls.

"It is absurd that in Brooklyn, New York - where I was born, actually - tens of thousands of people as I understand it, have been purged from the voting rolls," he said during a rally at Penn State University.

"From long lines and dramatic understaffing to longtime voters being forced to cast affidavit ballots and thousands of registered New Yorkers being dropped from the rolls, what's happening today is a disgrace," the Vermont senator added.

[devil21]

A lot of Bernie votes purged before they could be cast, no doubt.

[Brian4Liberty]

Brooklyn-born Bernie Sanders, who lost to Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, has urged officials to explain the discrepancies in the voting polls.

"It is absurd that in Brooklyn, New York - where I was born, actually - tens of thousands of people as I understand it, have been purged from the voting rolls," he said during a rally at Penn State University.

"From long lines and dramatic understaffing to longtime voters being forced to cast affidavit ballots and thousands of registered New Yorkers being dropped from the rolls, what's happening today is a disgrace," the Vermont senator added.

The GOP are amateurs when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, manipulation and fraud.

[timosman]

The GOP are amateurs when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, manipulation and fraud.

No question about that, they definitely lack finesse.

[alucard13mm]

Would 100,000, assuming they were all for Bernie, would have made a difference and got Sanders a win in NY??

I would not be amazed if the Hillary party has been rigging and messing with the polls/voters.

[devil21]

Would 100,000, assuming they were all for Bernie, would have made a difference and got Sanders a win in NY??

I would not be amazed if the Hillary party has been rigging and messing with the polls/voters.

Not based on the alleged final results (~300k difference, with 94% precincts reported per CNN) but if there was such blatant and widespread cheating in that part of the city then likely also happened elsewhere in the city and state.

[euphemia]

If Bernie Sanders does nothing more than force good people to look at the corruption at every level of society, he will have accomplished a lot.

[libertyjam]

simple analysis:
At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents. Clinton led the actual count by 680-622 (52.0-47.6%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton's lead increased to 802-589 (57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and Sanders had 33 fewer.
How can Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents? How can Sanders' total drop? They can't. It is mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/...oting-results/

New York Primary: Why is Exit Poll Data Adjusted to Match Final Voting Results?

by DOUG JOHNSON HATLEM

Tuesday night CNN projected a 52-48 Clinton win based on exit polling data at 9pm when polls closed in New York. Very similar numbers from ABC at the same time said voters by a 52-47 margin thought Clinton was more inspiring, a number you’d think would closely reflect how people voted. Clinton won the final reported tally by 16%, and by late night and early this morning, exit polling data available at CNN and elsewhere much more closely matched a mid-double digit margin for Clinton. Some of the turn arounds in terms of specific demographics were rather remarkable, especially since just 24 respondents were added to the relevant sample size.
Earlier, Clinton lead Sanders by 14% (57-43%) with Latina and Latino voters as I reported in my exit poll live blog. This was consistent with my 56-44% projection based primarily on the average of a half a dozen polls from the week and a half before New York voted. The final exit poll, however, shows Clinton doubling her lead to a 28% win with hispanic voters. Early reports suggested Sanders was winning 69-31% with voters under 45. Final exit polling shows him winning by just 10%, 55-45%, and included him losing the 30-39 year old demographic by 4%. Sanders has not lost 30-39-year-olds anywhere outside the South, including Ohio where he won with them by 18% but lost the overall vote by 14%.
From a statistical standpoint, this intrigued me.
Swings that radical, if the initial sampling is accurate in terms of size and randomness, are unusual but not out of the realm of possibility. My expectation was that those numbers would become more favorable to Sanders, not less. Sanders won rural upstate 58-42. Polls in rural upstate opened at noon, six hours later than polls in Buffalo and downstate, and just a handful of hours before initial exit polling was released. In Wisconsin, where I watched exit polling shifts carefully, younger voters voted later and stretched results more in Sanders favor.
I wanted to see what the initial sample size was. What I found was rather shocking.
As late as between 9-10pm eastern, the exit polls were still reporting similar numbers. John Aravosis wanted to prove that White Bernie-Bros are a real and measurable phenomenon. He took screenshots of CNN exit polling and posted them to his blog at 9:40pm last night. As of then, Clinton was leading Bernie Sanders with Latinos 59-41% with a 1367 sample size, just a 4% swing from earlier reporting. This made sense statistically, even if it wasn’t more favorable to Sanders as I expected.

But what happened next gets really weird. At that point, according not only to Aravosis’ blog, but also according to numbers I reported on my liveblog, CBS numbers still available as of this writing, and various Twitter users, Sanders was winning the 41% of the population 18-44 by a margin of 61-39% and was losing over 45-year-olds by the same 61-39% margin. These numbers are consistent with a 4 to 5 point Clinton win.
Here’s the deal, though. The sample size grew in the last two renditions of the exit pollingby just 24 respondents, first from 1367 to 1383 when I took several screen shots for my liveblog just after 11pm eastern and then to 1391 as of Wednesday morning. Over the same period, Clinton’s lead grew by 10% from 18% with Latinos to 28%. Her lead also grew by 10% among those 45 and over and shrunk by 12% with those under 45. In exit poll version (2), Sanders lead with white people (59% of the vote) by 9%, in exit poll (3) by just 2%, and now with exit poll (4) it is tied.
This would be possible and reasonable with a very large growth in sample size, but, as you might imagine, is mathematically impossible without serious data fiddling in this instance. Sanders lead with the same sampling grown by just 1.8% dropped by 12% overall, by nine percentage points with men, by 12% with young voters, and by 9% with white voters. Meanwhile, Clinton’s lead with Latinx voters grew from 18% to 28% and with black voters by 2%.
Apparently, the last 24 respondents to exit polls yesterday were all Latina or black female Clinton voters over 44, and they were all allowed also to count more than double while replacing more than one male Sanders voters under 45.
To put this plainly: the numbers add up to 341 18-44-year-old voters for Sanders out of 1367 total respondents as of 9pm exit polls, version (2), that said it was a close race. By the next morning, the maximum number of Sanders voters 18-44 in the same data had dropped to just 313. Edison Research removed twenty-eight young white male Sanders respondents and has given no public explanation for the same. The initial overall exit poll, +4 or +5 Clinton, was outside the margin of error for the final result, Clinton +16 with 99.6% reporting.
I have attempted to contact Edison Research for a response. Yesterday afternoon, I was patched through to the voice mail of Joe Lenski, co-founder and Executive Vice-President of Edison. He has not responded and other calls and emails have also gone unanswered. I will update this piece if anyone from Edison responds.

[libertyjam]

https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/new-york-election-investigators-protect-democrat-in-charge-of-voter-rolls-suspends-republican/

New York Election Investigators Protect Democrat In Charge of Voter Rolls & Suspends Republican

Posted on April 22, 2016 by truthfirst12013
In a bizarre move around the investigation of the mass purging of Democrats from election rolls in Brooklyn and the state of New York, a suspension was made of a top Republican on the Election board. This individual was responsible for the oversight of the REPUBLICAN rolls (which did not have reported problems), NOT the Democratic rolls. It makes zero logical sense to suspend the individual who was not in charge of the rolls that were purged. From the article linked in the photo below:
“Democrat Betty Ann Canizio, the BOE Deputy Clerk for Brooklyn, is the official primarily responsible for overseeing the borough’s Democratic voting rolls while Haslett-Rudiano, a Republican, oversees her party’s rolls, sources said.
“It sounds like they cut a deal to make the Republican the scapegoat and protect Betty Ann,” said an elected Brooklyn official who’s a Democrat.”
It should be noted that the individual charge of the election investigation, Scott Stringer, is serving as a delegate to Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Party nominating convention in July. There is currently a demand for him to step aside of leading the investigation by residents, so that an impartial investigation to proceed.

[Ronin Truth]

Is that, perchance, suspended with pay?

[angelatc]

The GOP are amateurs when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, manipulation and fraud.

Democratic socialism is different though, or so Bernie sez.

[FindLiberty]

...back pay and/or cabinet position?

[timosman]

Schneiderman