Amazingly Moron NYC-CAN
Well, now the goofs are going to comb through all 24,664 rejected signatures, in the hopes that that they will be able to come up with 3,997 that were mistakenly rejected. In other words, they are praying that one in six of the rejected ballots turns out to be a legitimate voter.
NYC CAN is asking for volunteers over the next two weeks to help review the signatures invalidated by the City Clerk and Board of Elections. If you will be available at least three whole business days between August 10 and August 21 and you live in or near New York City, please email your name, schedule of availability and phone number to email@example.com, and please put VOLUNTEER in the subject field. NYC CAN will provide lunch!
Yet another example of how the Troofers can't do anything right. Look, this is really simple. Take the first 200 rejected ballots, and find out how many should not have been rejected. If you don't find at least 20 (or one in 10), then you might as well not bother. Remember, there are multiple reasons why a signature might be rejected:
* AI Address illegible or so abbreviated it cannot be identified.
* ALT Alteration (date/signature)
* DI Date incomplete
* DUP v._p._l_ Duplicate of same signature located in the petition at volume identification # ___, page__, line__
* DSP Date of witness statement is prior to date of signature
* F Forgery
* ILLS Illegible signature
* ILLD Illegible date
* NA No address stated
* ND No date stated
* NFN No first name\name is so abbreviated it cannot be identified
* NPN No page number –petition page not sequentially numbered
* NR Not registered as stated in BOE records
* OD Out of the district of the contest
* P Pencil or not in ink
* PR Signature is printed or not handwritten
* SH Similar handwriting
* TE Date of signature is prior to first day for circulating petitions
* TL Date of signature is subsequent to last day for
* circulating petitions or subsequent to date of witness signature
* SAP v._ p._ l_ Signed another petition for the same office on same or prior date designating another as candidate, at petition volume identification #______ page ___, line___.
* SW Signature is that of the subscribing witness to the page
* SWALT Subscribing Witness information altered (not initialed)
* SWNQ Subscribing witness not qualified
* SWNR Subscribing witness not registered, as stated
* SWDI Date incomplete in subscribing witness statement
* SWA No address or wrong address stated in subscribing witness statement
* SWND No date stated in subscribing witness statement 11
* SWNN Name of subscribing witness omitted from body of subscribing witness statement
* SWNS Signature of subscribing witness omitted
* SWNSO Number of signatures omitted from subscribing witness statement
* SWWNS Wrong number of signatures stated in subscribing witness statement
* SWTE Date of signature is prior to first day for circulating petitions
* SWTL Date of signature is subsequent to last day for circulating petitions
* WA Wrong address stated on petition
Note particularly that one about duplicate signatures; that means they're going to have to compile a database of all accepted signatures before they can even green-light one of the signatures as wrongfully rejected. I will also be interested to hear what the applicable date is on SWTE; remember the idiots claimed that 2008 signatures would be accepted.
Hat Tip: Big Al for Gold's post at OpEd News, Orphia Nay for the list of reasons for rejection, both at JREF.
Update: One very oddball thing about NYC-CAN that was pointed out in the comments section: If you do a Google search for NYC-CAN or NYC CAN, it shows up eventually, but nowhere near the top. Either the Troofers haven't done a good enough job of linking to the site, or NYC-CAN hasn't done the simple things that would move them up the search rankings. Are they self-sabotaging?