Unless I missed your </sarc> tag, how could this possibly be anything other than vote fraud?
A now 73 year old, who's registered as 164 years old currently, would -- at best -- have to have claimed to have been 112 at the time of his (or her, or its) first registration. Please do explain to me how a voter mistakes an estimate of his (or her, or its) own age by NINETY ONE YEARS. Any age over 21 makes the estimate even worse. Please.
A now 73 year old, who's registered as 164 years old currently, would -- at best -- have to have claimed to have been 112 at the time of his (or her, or its) first registration.
From the article: Board officials chalked up the implausible age snafu to previous practices that allowed residents not to provide their exact birthdays when registering to vote.
Some of the new voters — mostly women — simply wrote that they were “21+” — above the legal voting age.
Since they registered under the old system, the board grandfathered them in and listed 01/01/1850 as their DOBs in the electronic voting rolls.
I'm guessing that you have issues reading and comprehending English.
Or you are too intellectually lazy to actually READ the article you are commenting on, because your comments indicate one or the other, or both...
Or, maybe you work for Alex Jones.