Discussion
  • Read More
    TheMostCleverUsernameAndy Cush
    4/22/16 12:18pm

    She should be fired. She cost Hillary a ton of votes. Hillary won the disputed area by 18%.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Masshole JamesTheMostCleverUsername
      4/22/16 12:20pm

      Or...the polls were right and this was never a huge win for Hillary, it’s just that she purged Bernie’s voters from the rolls.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      toothpetardMasshole James
      4/22/16 12:23pm

      watching the exit polls get ‘adjusted’ was fun.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    gramercypoliceAndy Cush
    4/22/16 12:33pm

    After Gawker issued a call for stories about primary voting problems, we received multiple responses from New York City residents in Brooklyn and elsewhere who were registered to vote, but whose names were not on the books in their polling places.

    Obviously, one is too many, but I’m wondering, how many is “multiple” in this case? Is it 20 or 200 or 2,000, or 20,000?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      LongSnakegramercypolice
      4/22/16 12:40pm

      Who cares? It’s a meaningless metric. Not everyone who experienced issues will necessarily report them to Gawker for any number of reasons.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      toothpetardgramercypolice
      4/22/16 12:42pm

      ‘patronage hires’ sounds interesting.

      http://news.wbfo.org/post/ag-invest…

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    IskaralPustAndy Cush
    4/22/16 12:17pm

    “problems came after Haslett-Rudiano skipped a crucial step when purging dead or inactive voters from the rolls”

    Was the step in question “check if still alive?” I guess we can be thankful she isn’t an undertaker.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      steinoIskaralPust
      4/22/16 12:19pm

      Why should inactive voters be purged?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      IskaralPuststeino
      4/22/16 12:25pm

      I don’t know, actually. I kind of assumed they meant voters that had moved? I wasn’t aware that “use it or lose it” was a concept applicable to selecting a representative in a republic.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Frankenbike666Andy Cush
    4/22/16 12:32pm

    The thing that every campaign knows, is that no matter how voters were excluded, no matter how their party may cheat, no matter how incompetent election officials are...

    The results of a compromised election always stands. If you win by cheating, you still won, and if anything illegal was going on, those people directly involved may be charged (but it almost never happens), the election result always stands.

    Isn’t it funny how wherever election shenanigans occurred, Hillary Clinton won by double digits?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Manny Both-HansFrankenbike666
      4/22/16 12:53pm

      Ignoring that last sentence, this is exactly the issue. The benefits of trying to rig/corrupt an election vastly outweigh the consequences. This is especially true since the people who benefit the most aren’t the ones who ever face any consequences.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KumichoFrankenbike666
      4/22/16 1:45pm

      You do realize that primaries are run by the states, and not by the parties, right? Or is your tin foil hat so tight that you can’t very read well either?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Masshole JamesAndy Cush
    4/22/16 12:15pm

    Perhaps Obama should invade NYC, get rid of your corrupt officials and hold free and fair elections for all?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Middle Class White Liberal Male In His 20sMasshole James
      4/22/16 12:17pm

      Why, is there oil under Brooklyn?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Masshole JamesMiddle Class White Liberal Male In His 20s
      4/22/16 12:19pm

      No, but all the NYC blogs (ahem) clearly are using snark like a weapon of mass destruction.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ThatFatScatCat fucking loves muddy puddlesAndy Cush
    4/22/16 12:22pm

    How are these instances of voter mishandling still occurring. We’ve been doing this for a long fucking time. How is the system still broken?!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PoodletimeThatFatScatCat fucking loves muddy puddles
      4/22/16 12:40pm

      Because someone with money is benefitting/profiting. I think the over/under is that incumbents benefit the most when elections are compromised, but I’m not sure.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CeraunographPoodletime
      4/22/16 1:33pm

      No, it’s far more likely to be quite the opposite: there’s not enough money and nobody benefits. Elections are chronically underfunded and are usually an easy line on the budget to cut again and again, and until now nobody seemed to care.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    AllModConnedAndy Cush
    4/22/16 1:08pm

    Why should NYC voters have to vote in every election cycle to maintain their registration? It’s fucking bullshit. I got purged back in 2000 because I didn’t vote in 1998-1999.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      IndianaJoanAllModConned
      4/22/16 1:56pm

      Because a lot of people move or die and aren’t indefinitely kept on the rolls when they don’t show up to vote for that long. You didn’t vote for two years and didn’t bother checking your registration?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AllModConnedIndianaJoan
      4/22/16 2:05pm

      I hadn’t moved and this is way pre-internet days of being able to do such things. If you miss an election cycle you shouldn’t get purged from the rolls it’s bullshit. They should have same day registration. It’s fucking 2016 not 1942.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    e.nonAndy Cush
    4/22/16 12:44pm

    NY state and city are really reaching third world level of corruption. This woman ‘purchased’ a bldg on the uws in 1976 for $5k.... left it uninhabited for years to the misery of neighbors and sold it for $6.6 million in 2014.

    It’s quite beneficial to be a city employee who has repeatedly been cited for mismanagement... and never worry about losing your job.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      NoOnesPoste.non
      4/22/16 1:58pm

      The whole point of this article is that a public worker isn't getting paid and will probably be fired.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KittenMorningsNoOnesPost
      4/22/16 6:13pm

      They are scapegoating her so that they don’t have to acknowledge a larger corruption issue.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    dej0taAndy Cush
    4/22/16 1:09pm

    Whenever a damn Clinton supporter throws around her 2.5M lead I wish they realized how easy it is to question the legitimacy. They act like Sanders supporters struggle with math but it’s not the counting we question it’s the integrity of what’s getting counted. It truly isn’t unreasonable to question if Clinton really is the popular candidate. She probably is but there’s no reason to believe it while these shenanigans keep occuring. This is why her lead could fairly be questioned as legitimate. I guess that makes me a Bernie Bro...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Canada2035dej0ta
      4/22/16 1:14pm

      So your argument is that even though she has more delegates and more total votes maybe she cheated so really Bernie is better...

      That is a really bad argument.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      dej0taCanada2035
      4/22/16 1:20pm

      Typical Clinton supporter: Ignores the main point or idea then talks down to the person suggesting it. You act is if voter shenanigans are meaningless. Bernie is better because he has integrity, Clinton may or may not actually have the majority of support. And after (speficially) Nevada, Arizona and NY pretending that it’s the absolute truth is asinine. It’s that simple.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    jbrown2112Andy Cush
    4/22/16 3:56pm

    For all of the people that are saying ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Hillary would have won by more’, that isn’t the point. Hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised, that is why she is being fired. Not everything is this primary, if we can’t run an election in NYC, we are going to look pretty stupid as Democrats charging the South with Voter Suppression during the next administration, whoever is sitting in the big chair.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KittenMorningsjbrown2112
      4/22/16 6:15pm

      I agree with you there. This isn’t just about this primary or this election. It’s much larger than that.

      Reply
      <