California introduces bill forcing presidential candidates to release taxes

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I can't think of any reason that only people who attempt to register using a SS# would be using unverifiable information.

Only fraud. That's the only answer, because of course, the SSA program is foolproof.

Additionally, we determined the HAVV program did not provide consistent verification responses to the States when the same applicant data were entered into the program. For example, States were provided responses for at least 356 applicants that initially indicated a match response but subsequently the States were provided a no-match response when the same data (name, SSN, DoB, and last four digits of the SSN) were entered into the verification program.

We believe the high no-match response rate and the inconsistent verification responses can be attributed to the lack of (1) a unique identifier (full SSN), (2) flexible matching criteria, and (3) testing to assess the accuracy of the verification responses. Because of the limitations of the matching criteria established by the legislation, the HAVV program may indicate a no-match when a match does in fact exist in SSA records. SSA does alert the States of some of the inherent problems in attempting verifications using only the last four digits of an SSN. The User Agreements between the State, MVA and SSA, state ”. . . because SSA’s enumeration records are based on a complete and unique 9 digit SSN, verification using only the last 4 digits of that number are inherently a partial rather than the full ’9 digit‘ verification and may result in multiple positive matches or false positive matches of information.” However, the high no-match response rate and the inconsistent verification responses could hinder the States’ ability to determine whether applicants should be allowed to vote.

oig.ssa.gov...

a reply to: PlasticWizard

That was one example, just to show that the claim of voter fraud isn't new, nor are the investigations.

Republicans are always making the claim and asking for new rules to be imposed and yet when the investigations actually happen they always come back saying it has no significant impact on elections. But that doesn't matter to Republicans who use fear as their platform always and without fail.

Strange how they keep screaming about how much Illegal voter fraud is allegedly happening even when they're winning isn't it??? Has that ever seemed strange to you at all??? How could both be happening at the same time???

But it doesn't matter because that fear keeps people in line no matter what. They don't bother to actually see if it makes any sense or not or if it can be validated by actual reality.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How will I identify myself when registering to vote?

The voter registration application asks for your driver license or California identification card number, or you can use the last four numbers on your Social Security card. If you do not have a driver license, California identification card or Social Security card, you may leave that space blank. Your county elections official will assign a number to you that will be used to identify you as a voter.
www.sos.ca.gov...

Even you say "It's up to the state to verify" the applicant right??? So you still have to go to some state official somewhere and prove your residence here or something.

I tried voting without first being registered and tried to do it the day I wanted to vote. I'm a white guy lived here my whole life, had an drivers License even to prove who I was. But it didn't have my resident address on it and since I had no other way to prove I was a resident here they wouldn't let me vote. Granted this was like 20 years ago but it's not as easy as just not giving any information and still getting registered to vote. Otherwise nobody would even bother giving the information to begin with.

You are going to have to reread what I wrote. Yes, I already wrote that the state has to assign a Voter ID# to registrants who don't provide a SS# or DL/ID#, pursuant to the HAVA.

That isn't verifying squat...it's assigning a number.

You don't have to go see an elections official or anything else if you don't provide a SS# or DL/ID#. In fact, you can register by mail and not provide any ID when you register.

You will then be mailed a voter registration card -- it's called a voter notification card, in California.

HOWEVER, since you didn't provide any identification when you registered, you will be required to provide ID the first time you go vote.

AND that voter notification card you obtained after registering fraudulently IS AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF ID.

Link, see page 2 in the pdf

***

I tried voting without first being registered and tried to do it the day I wanted to vote. I'm a white guy lived here my whole life, had an drivers License even to prove who I was. But it didn't have my resident address on it and since I had no other way to prove I was a resident here they wouldn't let me vote. Granted this was like 20 years ago but it's not as easy as just not giving any information and still getting registered to vote. Otherwise nobody would even bother giving the information to begin with.

All of this is irrelevant. The HAVA was passed in 2002.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Phage
because SSA’s enumeration records are based on a complete and unique 9 digit SSN, verification using only the last 4 digits of that number are inherently a partial rather than the full ’9 digit‘ verification and may result in multiple positive matches or false positive matches of information.” However, the high no-match response rate and the inconsistent verification responses could hinder the States’ ability to determine whether applicants should be allowed to vote.
oig.ssa.gov...

We are talking about more than 5 million NON-MATCHES....not multiple matches.

Seriously, I followed the link you posted and it doesn't even make sense as an explanation. Yep, it's there...but it's illogical, none-the-less.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

We are talking about more than 5 million NON-MATCHES

Yes, there are a lot of people in California. There were 950,000 non matches in New York. 814,000 non matches in Illinois. The system sucks.


So, you didn't read the first part. Here it is again:

We believe the high no-match response rate and the inconsistent verification responses can be attributed to the lack of (1) a unique identifier (full SSN), (2) flexible matching criteria, and (3) testing to assess the accuracy of the verification responses. Because of the limitations of the matching criteria established by the legislation, the HAVV program may indicate a no-match when a match does in fact exist in SSA records.

The HAVV verification system sucks. Is what the audit found. It is not reliable.

a reply to: Phage

Again, you are making an argument to explain a high level of MULTIPLE MATCHES, not NON-MATCHES.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
Maybe this will help:

We believe the high no-match response rate and the inconsistent verification responses can be attributed to the lack of (1) a unique identifier (full SSN), (2) flexible matching criteria, and (3) testing to assess the accuracy of the verification responses. Because of the limitations of the matching criteria established by the legislation, the HAVV program may indicate a no-match when a match does in fact exist in SSA records.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

We are talking about more than 5 million NON-MATCHES

Yes, there are a lot of people in California. There were 950,000 non matches in New York. 814,000 non matches in Illinois. The system sucks.


So, you didn't read the first part. Here it is again:

We believe the high no-match response rate and the inconsistent verification responses can be attributed to the lack of (1) a unique identifier (full SSN), (2) flexible matching criteria, and (3) testing to assess the accuracy of the verification responses. Because of the limitations of the matching criteria established by the legislation, the HAVV program may indicate a no-match when a match does in fact exist in SSA records.

The HAVV verification system sucks. Is what the audit found. It is not reliable.

How is providing the entire SSN going to help with matches when the last four digits don't match? It's nonsensical.

And if the matching criteria is flexible, that would only result in MULTIPLE MATCHES...not non-matches.

And testing the accuracy of the system? They cross check the provided Name, DOB, and the last four digits of a SS# for a match within their records. Again, that *excuse* makes no sense or you would see roughly the same percentage of rejected registrations in every state. And that is not the case.

This ridiculous line of reasoning is disturbing considering the source you have pulled! I can't believe you aren't bothered by these illogical excuses.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Again, that *excuse* makes no sense or you would see roughly the same percentage of rejected registrations in every state.

That would seem to be based on a knowledge of how the system is programmed. Do you have that information?

Additionally, we determined the HAVV program did not provide consistent verification responses to the States when the same applicant data were entered into the program. For example, States were provided responses for at least 356 applicants that initially indicated a match response but subsequently the States were provided a no-match response when the same data (name, SSN, DoB, and last four digits of the SSN) were entered into the verification program.

Same data, different results. The system is not reliable.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. Because they were fearful that if they voted, ICE would come after their families.

Sure, they are afraid that they and their families will be deported, I am not saying otherwise. However the relevant part is that Obama answers a question about whether specifically young illegal Latino immigrants are right to be fearful about voting.

An "undocumented citizen" is not a legal term. It is the term she uses for them. They cannot vote because they are undocumented. She was talking about the millennials who are citizens.

No, she was not, and surely you must know that.

A Dreamer is by definition an illegal, which by the way is not a legal term either. The legal term is 'undocumented immigrant'. And Rodriguez specifically said "and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country" making it clear why (and that) she is choosing to use 'undocumented citizen' instead of 'undocumented immigrant'.

She is talking about undocumented immigrants that she - and I sympathize - wants to be called citizens.

(I will give you that it can be interpreted as if she talks about millennials as a separate group though. I have listened to it several times, and to me it sounds like she is using it to denote the the age group of the immigrants he is talking about. And I think the context (the part of the interview that went before) support that notion. But there is room for interpretation.)

False.He is being asked if Latino citizens who vote should be fearful of ICE coming after their relatives. He says, no, they should not be.

No. He is asked about undocumented immigrants. Which is why deportation is an issue in the first place.

a reply to: DupontDeux

And Rodriguez specifically said "and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country" making it clear why (and that) she is choosing to use 'undocumented citizen' instead of 'undocumented immigrant'.

There is no such thing as an undocumented citizen.

He is asked about undocumented immigrants. Which is why deportation is an issue in the first place.

Yes. He was asked if citizens who vote should be worried about actions against their undocumented relatives. If, by voting, there was information being provided which could be used to track them down.

originally posted by: Phage
That would seem to be based on a knowledge of how the system is programmed. Do you have that information?

Yes. The HAVV system is identical for every state that participates. Every state sends the applicants' name, DOB, and last four digits of a SS# to the SSA for crosschecking in the HAVV system.

originally posted by: Phage
The system is not reliable.

And, yet, I am supposed to feel fabulous about it and not question anything.

Got it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes. The HAVV system is identical for every state that participates. Every state sends the applicants' name, DOB, and last four digits of a SS# to the SSA for crosschecking in the HAVV system.

I meant the algorithms used by the computer system which does the matching.

And, yet, I am supposed to feel fabulous about it and not question anything.

No.
But you might understand that the fact that it produces a lot of no-matches (and different results with the same data) is not an indication that there is rampant voter fraud. It's an indication that the system sucks.

a reply to: Phage

I think you know exactly how bad this smells. This is why I would fork over my right to vote, in a heartbeat, if I could be forgiven of my student loan debt (re: another recent thread). Your complacency is just another reminder of how worthless it is.

The other day, I checked to see if my info had been compromised in the Equifax hack by entering my last name and the last 5 digits of my SS#. I did the same with my husband.

Even those dumba$$es managed to find both me and my husband, right away.

I can't believe you accept this BS. And it is clearly worth rejecting.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I wonder why they don't just use 4 digits like HAVV does.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I wonder why they don't just use 4 digits like HAVV does.

Well, they didn't ask for my DOB and yet they still managed to find us.

When I requested our credit reports at all three bureaus, they only asked for the last four digits....

AND THEY STILL FOUND US.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe the SSA should hire Equifax. Because what they're using now doesn't work very well.


Annyywayy...Do you think the state senate will pass the bill?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe the SSA should hire Equifax. Because what they're using now doesn't work very well.

According to buIIsh*t.

I can't think of a legitimate reason why it would suck so much for the last six years without any *repair.*

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Republicans won in California in nearly every presidential election between 1952 and 1988. Now it's Primarily Dems that win here.

There are still many Conservatives and Republicans here in Cali.

So, you're wrong and ignorant about California.

Using childish names like Kaliforiaski won't change that either.

But who cares about the actual truth when keeping your own ignorant bias is so much easier, right.

Nope, they drove the middle class out and pumped it full of illegal immigrants who they let vote.