27 Percent of New York’s Registered Voters Won’t Be Able to Vote in the State’s Primary

[babylonsister]

http://www.thenation.com/article/three-million-registered-voters-wont-be-able-to-vote-in-new-yorks-primary/

27 Percent of New York’s Registered Voters Won’t Be Able to Vote in the State’s Primary
New York is the fourth bluest state in the country but has some of the worst voting laws.
By Ari Berman


In June 2013, North Carolina passed the most sweeping voting restrictions in the country, requiring strict voter ID, cutting early voting and eliminating same-day registration, pre-registration for 16 and 17-year-olds, and out-of-precinct voting, among other political reforms. The state defended its cutbacks in court last summer by invoking, of all places, New York.

“The state of New York has no early voting as opposed to North Carolina that has ten days of early voting,” lawyer Thomas Farr said. “The state of New York has no same-day registration. The state of New York has no out-of precinct voting. The state of New York has no preregistration.”

It was a cynical defense of North Carolina’s law—North Carolinians don’t deserve to suffer because a state five hundred miles away has different laws—but it was still unnerving to hear a Southern state invoke a progressive Northern state to rationalize making it harder to vote.

The fact is, New York does have some of the worst voting laws in the country.

snip//

“New York has not embraced the momentum for reform that we’re seeing in other states,” says DeNora Getachew of the Brennan Center for Justice.

In 2016, 422 bills were introduced or considered in 41 states to improve voter access, according to the Brennan Center, an encouraging counterpart to the 17 states with new restrictions on the books.

New York is the fourth bluest state in the country, according to Gallup. It should be a leader on voting rights, not a laughingstock.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. New York State has some of the country's lowest turnout, NYC is even lower than the State and

they are mired in voter restrictions and arcane rules that have created a year in and year out voter apathy. NY State is interesting in that voter registration often rises but actual participation never rises and only falls.

New York State Near Bottom in Voter Turnout Rankings
New York City hit a historic low in voter turnout last November, but the latest report from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission makes it clear that our voter turnout crisis extends across New York State. After each federal election, the EAC collects data from election administrators around the country about voter registration and turnout for the best comparison for how states stack up against each other. New York routinely ranks near the bottom for turnout in EAC reports, and 2014 was no different. The state trailed the rest of the nation, ranking 46th for voter turnout among the citizen voting age population (CVAP). An abysmally low 29.1% of citizens age 18 or over cast a ballot last November – only slightly better than the 20% who turned out in New York City. New York can and should do more to encourage civic participation among voters — starting with reforming our outdated, restrictive election laws.
http://www.nyccfb.info/media/blog/new-york-state-near-bottom-voter-turnout-rankings

Many DU Hillary NYers seem astonishingly proud of this set of facts.....

[daleanime]

6. +1

[beastie boy]

14. Many of DU Hillary NYs are astonished that you call for action a day before the primary,

when it's too late to do anything about it.

But there is hope: perhaps you will learn your lesson and start organizing for the reform. You might make a difference by the time the next election comes around.

[unapatriciated]

43. We are very aware that it is too late for the primaries

but if you care about the GE you would want to see this addressed as soon as possible.

I live in NC and have seen first hand on how our voter laws and redistricting have hurt and suppressed the Dem vote here in NC.

Democrats win when there is high voter turnout. That should be reason enough to looking at and solving these issues.

I as a Sanders supporter see this for what it is...republican dirty tricks. If they can keep us fighting about who is responsible instead of fixing it, they win.

[beastie boy]

58. Guess what: I do care about GE.

And guess what: everyone who's been registered to vote, votes in GE. Regardless of party affiliation.

But if you are too lazy to register, don't blame the system.

[brooklynite]

98. Um, in the General Election EVERYONE can vote.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

145. And in Alabama, where I was raised, while population is over 40% black, it remains Republican...

[Bluenorthwest]

182. But the point is that in NY everyone can vote in the GE, they just don't much bother to do so.

Those of you who wear the mantel of NY Democratic Big Shots fail your own State and Party and deliver horrible, anemic turnout year after year after year. Sure, Indiana and Texas are lower. Does that make you feel better? My State has turnout DOUBLE NY's in the last several cycles. Double.
But that's how you like it?

[Loudestlib]

50. Similarly, many of Bernie's supporters are astonished that Hillary's supporters are ok with

disenfranchisement. Everyday it gets harder and harder to see any real difference between Hillary's supporters and republicans.

Disenfranchisement? Okay, as long as we win.

Taking big money from poorly regulated industries? Okay, as long as we win.

A history of dishonesty? Okay, as long as we win.

Fracking and oil pipelines? Okay, as long as we win.

It's an impressive list of similarities that gets bigger every day.

[beastie boy]

61. Remind me please: who sued the Arizona Election Board? Was it Bernie's campaign?

So who is OK with disenfranchisement again?

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. The two campaigns and the dem party

Do you want the order here? It wasn't the HRC leading.

[stopbush]

73. Actually, it was the DNC and the HRC Campaign that filed the joint lawsuit.

Sanders was nowhere to be seen.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/14/clinton-campaign-democratic-party-sue-arizona-over-primary-voting-problems.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. You might want to try mother Jones

And I am on a phone at court So can't help you

Or CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/dnc-lawsuit-arizona/

Hurry up and wait

[stopbush]

63. Actually, Hillary supporters are OK with Democrats picking the Democratic nominee.

I don't think Rs should have a say in picking our nominee, nor Greens, nor American Independent Party types, nor Libertarians nor Independents. Start your own party, devise your own nominating system, field your own candidates and vote on them.

As a lifelong Democrat, I have no interest at all in having say in who the candidate is for a Party to which I don't belong. I really don't care. Why should an Independent have any interest in who the Democrats or Republicans nominate? If you have even a scintilla of interest, you join the D or R Party. If you can't be bothered, don't expect to have the privilege of saying who we select as candidates.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. I agree. Close them everywhere

As long as the taxpayer does not get to pay one red cent for a private party function. Oh this goes for all parties by the way

[Loudestlib]

77. Taxpayers do pay for primaries. That's a problem, pay but no play.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I know. That is why I am saying

They want to close them. Sure...not one cent from the state

Those advocating to close them...well don't like that

[Bluenorthwest]

181. My State has none of those issue, friend. NY has the problems, not my State.

I have been pushing NYers to reform their crappy election laws for years and years and years. I'm also not alone in that, the link I provided is to NYC's very own election finance board and that information is not new to this cycle, kiddo, it is old shit that NY Democrats have yet to address.

In 2014 my State's turnout was more than double NY's. We vote. They don't. We encourage voting, NY discourages voting. They should be ashamed.

[CrowCityDem]

2. Not getting your way =/= disenfranchisement

[babylonsister]

3. Excuse me?

Maybe there's an actual problem here that needs to be addressed. It obviously won't happen by tomorrow, but doncha think it should be reviewed at some point for future elections? I'd be pissed if I thought my vote didn't count.

[CrowCityDem]

4. Every vote does count, so long as you're registered.

[daleanime]

7. Last year....

[zalinda]

10. And what if you've been unregistered?

Or your party registration has been changed?

I think they should do away with party registration altogether. Why shouldn't we vote for the best candidate regardless of party?



Z

[Orrex]

13. Why should you get to pick the candidate if it's not your party?

[elljay]

22. What if you just made up your mind?

Just because you and I may have decided a long time ago what party we support and which candidate doesn't mean that everybody else has. Not everyone follows politics regularly. There was not as much information available 6 months ago and quite a few people either didn't make up their minds or didn't even know that there was a party registration deadline. Instead of placing unnecessary barriers in front of them, we need to have a way for people who take a longer time to process the information and decide that they would like to become Democrats to do so and vote in the primary. This should have nothing to do with which candidate they support but with our desire to grow the Democratic party and to encourage the unaffiliated to join us and participate.

[Orrex]

32. How often does that happen, exactly?

I'd be interested to see the number of people who had no idea how they'd vote, only to have an epiphany in the last days before the primary.

Unless you can present evidence to the contrary, I simply don't accept that the number of these disenfranchised last-minute mind-changers offsets the potential for abuse of the primary system by non-party members.

This should have nothing to do with which candidate they support but with our desire to grow the Democratic party and to encourage the unaffiliated to join us and participate.

I definitely agree that the current deadline is much too early, but I don't have a problem with a 30-day cutoff.

[elljay]

89. I don't disagree

that some reasonable regulation could be put in place to minimize outside "interference." However, from what I am posting in the links, below, it seems that crossover "raiding" is not at all a major issue. I tried to limit to study-based conclusions rather than articles in which people speculate about the subject without disclosing their supporting data. I also included a couple of articles that discuss some of the many registration problems in NY and Massachusetts. Again, sometimes we need to step back and recognize that not everyone is as involved as we are, there are mistakes and irregularities that will happen, and our main goal is to get as many people in this country to vote in each and every election. If that happens, we win.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89g5x6vn#page-11
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-politics-20150222-story.html
http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/files/polmeth/alvar99b.pdf
(an old paper, but interesting)


http://gothamist.com/2016/04/06/voter_confusion_primary_ny.php
http://www.wbur.org/2016/02/09/galvin-mass-voter-registration-primary

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. Why

would it take so long to know if you're planning on voting Democratic or Republican? I understand that it might have been too early to know if you're going to vote Hillary or Bernie and maybe 6 months out is a bit too long but if you're a left-leaning independent, why would you not go ahead and register to vote in the Democratic primary- assuming you probably wanted to do so? Was there a remote possibility that something the Republicans said over the past six months might have encouraged you to register to vote in the Republican primary instead?

[elljay]

87. We're not typical

of the average voter. We're more interested in issues and politics than in the Kardashians (I'm making an assumption about you ). There actually are people out there, lots of them, who don't follow politics until the elections are right on top of them. They wouldn't have any idea about the rules or think about looking them up in advance. I have a number of friends who started out as Republicans but who've left that party as it became increasingly crazy. There are Republicans even now for whom the thought of voting for Trump or Cruz is the last straw and they're ready to come over to us. The question is, do we recognize that a segment of the population is always going to be like this and make it easier for them to become engaged, or do we push them away? With all of the Republican voter obstruction, I think we need to be doing anything we can to encourage people to vote. I am quite sure that there are people who will go to the polls tomorrow, find out they are not able to vote in the primary, and then decide to not bother in November. If we want to not only win the presidency, but also win in the down ticket races, we need each and every one of these people on our side. I don't mind some reasonable rules to minimize trolls trying to muck things up, but I suspect there are fewer trolls trying to do this than regular people who really want to vote for the candidate they support and who just didn't get their act together in time.

[randome]

108. Good points.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Proud Liberal Dem]

152. A refreshingly rational post

Thanks for the perspective. BTW what kind of assumption did you make about me (You can PM me if you like)?

[Art_from_Ark]

131. So no one in an open primary state should be able to pick a candidate?

[Orrex]

137. If that's your opinion, then good for you.

Since I've made no statement along those lines, I see no reason for me to defend your framing of the issue.

I have asked for a clear reason why non-party members should get a say in picking a party's nominee.

I have made no comment about states with open primaries.

[Art_from_Ark]

139. You wrote, and I quote, "Why should you get to pick the candidate if it's not your party?"

In open primary states like Arkansas, you don't have to register for a party. I am not officially a member of the Democratic Party, since I've never had to register party preference. But I've always voted in Democratic primaries for nearly 40 years. By your logic, I should not be able to vote in the Democratic Party primaries because I am not a registered member.

[Orrex]

153. If that's your opinion, then good for you.

You still haven't presented a good reason why non-party members should get a say in choosing a party's candidate.

[Art_from_Ark]

162. So once again, you are saying, indirectly, that voters in open primary states

don't have a right to vote in Democratic primaries because they are not party members.

[Orrex]

164. No, once again, YOU are saying that.

I'm asking you for a good reason, and your failure to provide one suggests that you can't think of any.

[nashville_brook]

207. YAY DEMOCRACY!!!! ...only for those in parties, and who register 3 months in advance, and

who manage to not get purged, and who have proper identification...WHICH is subject to change...and, BTW all this criteria is subject to change b/c...

YAY DEMOCRACY!!!

[Orrex]

209. You're unfairly conflating several issues there

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you're attempting ironic hyperbole, rather than engaging in deliberate intellectual dishonesty or failing to realize that your argument is nonsense.

Let's review:

only for those in parties, and who register 3 months in advance

Since I've stated that I find the early cutoff to be ridiculous, then you must realize that you and I are on the same page on this. Not sure why you're repeating it here except because you're so happy to agree with me.

who manage to not get purged

If the purge is legal (convicted felon, non-state resident, deceased), then this is not an issue, and I'm sure that you know this. If the purge is illegal (bogus party-switching, fraudulent removal from roles, deliberately falsified information by a third party), then it should absolutely be corrected and the guilty parties punished. Of course, fraudulent activity has nothing to do with legitimate and publicly available party policy, so it's not clear why you would connect the two here.

and who have proper identification

Yes, that is indeed inexcusable bullshit and should be fought at every turn. We've all heard the stories of elderly voters forced to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours to register, and it's clear that these oppressive measures affect certain victims more than others. Of course, such deceptive practices have nothing to do with legitimate and publicly available party policy, so it's not clear why you would connect the two here.

WHICH is subject to change

As long as the change is legitimate, transparent to the public and easily verified, then this isn't a problem. New York's rules have not changed any time recently in this regard, so you are in effect endorsing them.

So when you eliminate the criminal tactics of voter suppression, you're left with legal and publicly accessible rules that you simply don't like. Fair enough; there are some rules that I don't like either, but I don't pretend that my dislike of those rules makes them the same as criminal fraud.

[brush]

204. Register in a party and vote in that party's primary

Work for your party by phone banking, canvassing, doing signage, registering voters, fund raising, assisting voters to the polls — something to help your party.

Why would you think that someone who has no connection, no skin in the game in the party should help decide who the party chooses for the general election?

You vote in the general election because you didn't put in any time to work for a candidate, whether it's Bernie or Hillary.

[questionseverything]

168. once it is a primary and the gov't is paying it should have to make voting accessable

ny making the change date 6 months ahead of the primary is overly restrictive, couple that with the register data bases problems and an open primary would be fair

[beastie boy]

16. That will require a constitutional amendment. Go for it!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

93. In NY?

Certainly not in U.S. Constitution.

[beastie boy]

95. Including NY

State electoral colleges are in the Constitution.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

97. None of that

has anything to do with the post you responded to about not making people register for parties.

[beastie boy]

110. Oops. My bad. Too many threads going on.

My mother warned me about getting involved with more than one thread at a time.

[randome]

115. Maybe next time YOU'LL LISTEN TO HER!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[beastie boy]

121. I will. Promise. nt

[Kip Humphrey]

29. How to spot a Republicrat.

[hueymahl]

183. This sound remarkably like the republican bigots here in georgia

Always trying to find a new hurdle to registration, always making excuses.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. I'd be pissed if you were a Registered Republican, and got to screw around in the Dem nominating....

process. You guys keep trying to create a phony voter disenfranchisement argument where there is none. NY's rules are simple, you either join a party by the cut-off date (which is set in law), or you save your vote for the General Election. Why do certain campaigns need so much hand holding to follow the rules?

[WolverineDG]

69. Like HRC has never created a phony voter disenfranchisement argument before

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. You can sell that "BS" elsewhere, cuz I'm not buyin'.

[WolverineDG]

126. Keep your head in the sand

[Tarheel_Dem]

146. Et tu!

[progressoid]

169. "which is set in law"

Never mind that the law is arcane.

[Tarheel_Dem]

213. What's "arcane" is concerned voters not taking ownership of their responsibility to follow the rules

I am not in favor of rules changes that make it easier for Greens, Libertarians, and other assorted non-Democrats to screw around in our nominating process. We have parties for a reason. If your scruples don't allow for you to join the Democratic Party, then screw you, AFAIC.

[progressoid]

215. And what about those people who sincerely want to join the party?

Or even Democrats who moved to the state. But they just didn't happen to get there six months before the April 19 primary. They are just shit out of luck.

That's a pretty awful way expand the party. And an even worse way to treat your own people.

This isn't about the scruples of the voters, but the scruples of the system that doesn't accommodate the modern voter.

[Tarheel_Dem]

216. Tough shit.

[progressoid]

220. Nice.

That should really get people fired up to support the party.

[NurseJackie]

9. Exactly. Thank you.

How can they not already know what the rules are? I guess they're not as "tuned-in" and "aware" and "involved" and "politically active" as they thought they were (or as they'd have had us believe.)

In any case, it's a lesson for them to learn from and maybe in the future they won't make the same mistake again.

Note to Jury: The above statements represent my opinion. No DU rules or terms of service have been violated. It is not against the rules to have an opinion that differs from the Alerter. --- REMINDER: Jury Duty is not intended to be a weapon to silence opponents. It's a community standards tool to enforce the terms of service. Use your best and honest judgement when deciding if this post violates the actual DU rules.

[Scootaloo]

31. Disenfranchisement = disenfranchisement

No surprise to see a Clinton supporter supporting regressive voter laws though.

[Orrex]

33. Should voter registration be required of anyone at all?

What exactly is your threshold for "disenfranchisement?"

[Scootaloo]

40. Well, being dropped from the rolls and having your registration changed without consultation

...seems to fit the bill.

[Orrex]

46. Agreed, but that's not what we're talking about here

I'm not aware of anyone here who's claiming that unlawfully changed voter registrations are acceptable.

However, voluntarily waiting until after a deadline has passed is obviously not disenfranchisement. That would be like showing up to a movie an hour late and demanding that the theater restart it.

Again, I agree that the current deadline for changing parties is much too early, so that should be changed IMO.

[Scootaloo]

49. Yeah, it's not as it anyone had been bringing this up until just today oh wait

It's been a known problem for years. People have been trying to get it changed for years. And when a vote comes up and it picks up urgency, people who support restrictive voter laws say "well it's too late to do anything now."

Every time.

It's so bad in New York that Teabaggers use New York as a precedent to bring back restrictive laws in North Carolina. That's the opening point of the OP. And I see so many Huillary supporters up and down this thread, defending this, supporting it, calling it great.

[Orrex]

56. Who's calling it great? Please be specific.

On the contrary, I see people expressing the view that it is not unreasonable to restrict a party's primary voting to members of that party, and I haven't seen a compelling argument to the contrary. Would you care to share one? You'd be the first to do so.

People have been trying to get it changed for years. And when a vote comes up and it picks up urgency, people who support restrictive voter laws say "well it's too late to do anything now."

At this date, I would say that it is too late to fix it for this cycle--do you disagree? I would recommend that you rally your legions of allegedly disenfranchised Independents to voice their will to the state legislature and solve the problem in advance of the next primary. Hell, if I were in NY I'd be happy to support that change. But if the people so grievously wounded by this process can't be galvanized to act against it, exactly what solution do you propose?

It's so bad in New York that Teabaggers use New York as a precedent to bring back restrictive laws in North Carolina.

My main objection is that the cutoff date is much too early, and correcting this (to 30 days IMO) would seem to obviate most of the other issues.

[Scootaloo]

132. Well, if you support it, if you defend it, if you defend it you must feel it is great. Worth having.

And like I said, it's been consistently brought up, people have been trying to fix it.. .but the feet keep dragging. On, and on, and on. And then an election comes up, the problem that has been there is still there, and you and your ilk pop up like gophers in a manure field and say 'We can't change it now, you guys are fucked up for wanting it changed now!" as if it's some new thing that hasn't ever been brought up before. After the election, you will keep ignoring hte problem, you will keep passing by advocacy of change, and when the next election comes up, you're just going ot sneer and spit and snarl at the people trying ot change it, all over again.

[Orrex]

136. You're misrepresenting my position.

No one in this thread (or in any other that I've seen) has given a good reason why non-party members should get a say in which nominee the party puts on the ballot. That's about all that I'm defending, though several here have deceitfully chosen to pretend that they're victims of a campaign of suppression.

I have stated repeatedly that the deadline to change parties is much too early. I don't see how I can make this any more plain.

After the election, you will keep ignoring hte problem, you will keep passing by advocacy of change, and when the next election comes up, you're just going ot sneer and spit and snarl at the people trying ot change it, all over again.

I have stated that I would work to change it if I were a NY resident. As a PA resident, NY won't give a shit about my opinion on the matter. If you disagree, then tell me exactly what I can do to influence the NY legislature. Please be specific.

Or, if you'd prefer, you can continue to misrepresent my position (which is probably what you'll do anyway).

[qwlauren35]

148. Here in Maryland

You can register on the day of the election. So basically, if you want to switch party affiliations that day, you can. I'm pretty happy with that. Maryland does a lot to make voting easy. We have an 8 day early voting process, we do not have voter ID laws, and we have register and vote processes.

I'm very proud of my state.

[Orrex]

156. I'm down with that

I'd be happy with a 30-day cutoff for party changes, but if a state can manage same-day registration, then that's great.

[hueymahl]

184. Another post that uses the same talking points used by bigoted republicans here in georgia.

[Orrex]

186. Feel better now?

[hueymahl]

187. Not really. Voter suppression, regardless of the party, never feels good.

This morning, I was trying to explain how NY voting laws work to my middle-school aged kids. They had an insightful comment: "Why do they do that. That's pretty stupid"

[Orrex]

193. The registration deadline is indeed stupid, as has been stated repeatedly

Requiring party membership to vote in a party's primary doesn't strike me as stupid, and it certainly isn't voter suppression. I can't vote in the New York primary--is that voter suppression?

[hueymahl]

196. We are on the same page on that point

I'm not necessarily for open primaries. But I am for same-day registration because it both helps with the disenfranchisement issue and it helps grow the party. Most folks don't live and breathe politics like regular posters to this board. When they are told they can't vote because they should have registered three weeks ago (much less six months ago!), the natural, and appropriate, reaction is "fuck those guys." That is not how you grow an organization. But it is how you protect those in power.

[Orrex]

198. My initial thought was a 30-day cutoff

But upon reflection, and having learned how Maryland does it, I'd be fine with same-day registration.

[CrowCityDem]

35. Not understanding the law in time = self disenfranchisement

[Scootaloo]

41. I look forward to your advocacy for poll taxes and literacy tests,CrowCityDem

[Orrex]

59. False analogy

A publicly disclosed deadline that applies equally to all is nothing like poll taxes or a literary tests, which are applied ad loc to individual voters at the whim of the poll worker.

It's frankly disgusting that you would make that false analogy.

[hueymahl]

185. Yet another post that uses the same talking points used by bigoted republicans here in georgia

[mwooldri]

167. Doesn't equal inclusion either.

I thought that NY voting laws would have been more progressive than us here in NC, especially with our recent "reforms".

No early voting in NY? Is the demand for a postal ballot higher in NC when compared to the national average? Is it easy to get a postal ballot? How many voters would have voted by mail already?

I don't mind closed primaries. Personally I'd make primary elections a " members only" process. Worked well for the UK Labour Party, where lots of new members voted for Jeremy Corbyn.

[jwirr]

5. Any patterns in who is being flipped?

[Igel]

75. No data.

And if there were data, it's unlikely it would be a random sample. Meaning, "still no data."

It also doesn't matter if it's mostly (R) or (D), because it's ultimately each of the ratios Trump:Cruz and HRC:Sanders voters that matters. If it's all (D), and random, it doesn't affect the ratio; they're still registered to vote in the general.

[basselope]

8. Of course the Clintonites don't want it now.. but 2 years ago...

Chuck Schumer was calling for Open Primaries in NY


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/opinion/charles-schumer-adopt-the-open-primary.html?_r=0

But primaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don’t typically vote in primaries. Instead, it is the “third of the third” most to the right or most to the left who come out to vote — the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum. Making things worse, in most states, laws prohibit independents — who are not registered with either party and who make up a growing proportion of the electorate — from voting in primaries at all.

[Orrex]

12. The time to correct this isn't a week before the primary

Although it's ridiculous to require a voter to change her party affiliation a year before the primary, I'm not convinced that non-party members should have a say in determining a party's candidate.

There's no credible reason to require any more than a 30 day window for party changes IMO.

[basselope]

17. We SHOULD have open primaries everywhere.

The plurality of this country is independent.

[beastie boy]

19. Then be prepared for the teabaggers messing with your party's primaries to their advantage

[basselope]

37. Yeah, and voter ID laws protect against in person voter fraud.

Can we stop this idiotic talking point please?

[beastie boy]

55. Voter ID???? Seriously,

How do voter ID laws affect closed primaries and not open ones?

Talk about idiotic talking points...

[basselope]

94. It's called an equivalent.

Voter ID laws are nonsense, because they protect against a nonsense issue "In person voter fraud".

Closed primaries are nonsense, because they protect against a nonsense issue, "These republicans are going to come over and mess with our primary by trying to elect our weakest candidate".

Both things RARELY happen and even when they do they have 0 impact on the actual results b/c they make up such a small % of ACTUAL votes.

If you are REALLY that scared of people voting... just have ONLY caucuses, b/c then only the most dedicated supporters turn out.

It's a stupid solution, but then so are closed primaries.

The only reason people are for them today is because they KNOW that the PEOPLE voted.. Bernie would win.

2 years ago Schumer made the case for Open Primaries in NY and pointed out exactly what was wrong with closed primaries.

Yet, despite the fact that he is supporting Hillary, his opinion on this obviously doesn't matter (and likely has changed since this primary season began).

[beastie boy]

99. No way is it an equivalent.

Just look up Look up Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos".

And then pass judgement on stupid.

[basselope]

101. Yes, it is EXACTLY an equivalent.

Just look up Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" and see how effective it wasn't.

In short. Thank you for proving my point so incredibly effectively.

Even with their Dear Leader Rush behind him, they were not able to accomplish a dang thing because so few actually did it and the few that did, couldn't tip the scale one bit.

[beastie boy]

112. no, it is not.

Three primaries were directly affected by Operation Chaos. And that was one campaign by one talking head against one candidate. My candidate at the time.

Don't be too quick to declare your point proven. It wreaks of desperation.

[basselope]

113. No. 0 primaries were affected.

Absolute 0.

[beastie boy]

123. If facts disagree with your opinion, damn the facts, right?

At the point in which Limbaugh announced his gambit, Obama had seemed on the verge of clinching the Democratic nomination.[111] However, Clinton subsequently won the Ohio primary and the Texas primary (while losing the Texas caucus and the overall delegate split) with large pluralities from rural counties; thus reemerging as a competitive opponent in the race.[112]

On April 29, 2008 Limbaugh declared an "operational pause" in Operation Chaos, saying that Obama's defeat in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos

The Obama campaign and many of its supporters condemned Limbaugh's intervention tactic yesterday, calling it a major factor in Clinton's narrow Hoosier State win.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703932.html

[basselope]

130. You cite OPINIONS and call them facts?

You know the ACTUAL facts didn't lead to these conclusions.

Look at the Indiana exit polling. Clinton only won GOP voters by 8 points and they only made up 10% of those voting . So even if every single one of those votes were part of "operation chaos" That number doesn't = the 14K votes Clinton won by.

So even if you assume the absolute worst in the ONLY case that Obama claimed had an impact, it still doesn't change the result.

Like I said.. in person voter fraud.

[beastie boy]

140. Add 25% independent voters to your calculation.

Back then Indiana independents=Rush worshiping teabaggers. This means a full 35% of primary voters were not Democrats. That changes your calculus quite a bit, doesn't it?

[basselope]

144. Again.. those pesky facts get in your way.

You ignore the fact that Obama WON the independent vote 54-46

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#INDEM

So again... even if every single one of the votes of the Hillary voting independents were from Rush, MORE showed up to support Obama.

Why don't you give up while you are behind.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

208. Well said. Only OPEN primaries equate to actual democracy.

[restorefreedom]

62. very unlikely.

since people can only vote in one primary, they would have to be willing to give up participating in their own primary to mess with someone elses

most people are not willing to make that choice in the end.

plus strategic game playing has a way of backfiring.

[beastie boy]

64. Don't be so sure.

Look up Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos".

[restorefreedom]

88. limbaughs metal heads will be few in number

when they get to the voting booth. most people end up voting for what benefits then.

and even if some people decide to play games, the negative from the small number who will do that is far outweighed imo by the greater benefit of having open elections and greater participation in democracy. besides if we allow indys to vote in primaries, they would probably cancel out any damage done by the limbaugh bots

[beastie boy]

91. Over 13 million listeners weekly. Don't kid yourself

[restorefreedom]

116. doesn't mean they are all willing

to trash their own primary to try and ruin someone elses

besides an open primary also means we could mess with theirs

not that i am recommending such tit for tat

i think we are overestimating their willingness to sit out their own primaries

but tomato tomaaato i guess

[beastie boy]

120. Depends on the primaries

If a GOP candidate is assured of a victory, why not mess with Democratic candidates?

[restorefreedom]

122. and it can work the other way, too

like i said, differing opinions here. i think the benefits of open access primaries with increased turnout and more engagement outweight the negatives. and so far the open primary states have not imo been overly messed with by the other side.

[beastie boy]

124. Yes it can. Doesn't make it fair, though.

Agreed, there are pluses and minuses to either. From my perspective, I would rather go through the inconvenience of registering than having the primaries messed with.And if, for instance, increased turnout brings more gun loons and teabaggers into the Democratic primary, it's not necessarily a good thing.

[restorefreedom]

125. perhaps not. but what do you make of the computer glitch

or whatever it was that changed long time dems to indys in ny? and now they can't vote tomorrow..how does one remedy that without going to open primaries?

[beastie boy]

134. Record oversight is a difeent issue

The example you cite actually makes a case in favor of closed primaries: if you registered previously, and especially if you have proof of your registration, it is easier to restore the accuracy of your record.

[restorefreedom]

138. much of this apparently was done online

it looks like there was no record of the previous designation once its changed. i have lived in states where the pollster gives you a paper copy of your choice.

that will have to be done instead of this online crap imo

[beastie boy]

141. Those of us who are skeptical of anything done online have the option of creating PDF files for our

records, even if we don't have the option of printing out a paper copy. In any event, if the system doesn't give you this option, I would be suspicious as hell of it and would either take a screen shot or do a PDF.

[restorefreedom]

147. i hope they look into it

i also would be very uneasy if a record cannot be easily generated.

[MichMan]

212. Not if incumbants are running n/t

[Orrex]

20. Independents are free to vote as they wish in the general election

Just as they are free to field their own candidates.

Short of that, why should a non-party member get any say at all in picking a party's candidate?

[basselope]

38. Because we actually want GOOD candidates.

[Orrex]

45. Then join the party

If you're not a member of the party, then the party has no reason to care who you think is a "GOOD" candidate.

Join the party and cast your primary vote. Or don't and don't. Problem solved.


Let me repeat my view that the current threshold is ridiculous. A 30-day cutoff before the primary would be better and much more reasonable.

[basselope]

102. Why do I have to waste the paper?

I joined the democratic party so I could vote for Bernie.

I will be switching out, right after I have cast that vote.

You see, I was smart enough to do my research and learn my state's primary rules and I guess "game" the system.

Why suppress voters this way and force them to do this idiotic dance to get a decent person nominated?

Have the guts to have an open primary, just as Schumer suggested.

[Orrex]

106. It's not suppression. That's a lie.

And every point based on that lie is false.

If you consider it a waste of paper to engage in the electoral process, then I don't know what to tell you.

Also, your strategy is a good example of why the Democratic party might be less than thrilled to throw its weight behind Sanders, who's done very little for the party and has done (and will do) nothing for down-ticket contenders.

If any more than a handful of Sanders' supporters are playing the same "Look at Me!" game as you, then the party loses nothing by failing to coddle to you.

[basselope]

107. It's voter suppression. Deal with it.

I consider it a waste of paper for me to have to register with a political party, so they can mail me a 3x5 card that says I am now a "member" of their organization, just so I can vote for the person I want.

I am then going to UN REGISTER from that party after I cast my vote, b/c I have no actual wish to be associated with the cult of the democratic party.

I vote for people based on their values, voting records and proposals.. not the letter next to their name.

Forcing someone to have to jump through those hoops to cast a vote is voter suppression.

Come to terms with it, because it is what you are preaching.

[Orrex]

133. You're full of shenanigans. Deal with it.

Since you weren't a Democrat before the primary, aren't one now, and won't be when it's over, your absence will prove no loss.

[basselope]

142. No.

Sorry, I don't follow your religion will not vote for your candidate if I don't like them.

You WILL miss my vote.

[Orrex]

154. No, I won't. You're even less than insignificant.

You're the stereotypical "look at me being Independent," and posers like you don't impress me.

Sorry, I don't follow your religion will not vote for your candidate if I don't like them.

That's a meaningless and empty attempt at insult by a person of no consequence. My candidate is the Democrat. Who's yours?

You WILL miss my vote.

Why? Because the world revolves around you? I don't care to nurture your delusions of relevance. I didn't even know that you existed until a few hours ago, so when I forget about you in a day or so, I sure as shit won't miss you or your vote.

[basselope]

157. Yeah.. it does.

I dont follow a relgion.

Sorry, just not one of the sheep.

You'll miss my vote and my money.

Good luck without it.

[Orrex]

159. The more you squawk, the less significant you become.

Yeah.. it does.

No, it really doesn't.

I dont follow a relgion.

So? Neither do I. Your petty attacks make your attempts at significance even more pitiable.

Sorry, just not one of the sheep.

Again, your petty attacks make your attempts at significance even more pitiable.

You'll miss my vote and my money.

Doubt it. I've seen identical threats from other trolls in the past, so you don't impress me.

Good luck without it.

The Democratic party will be fine.

Look, let's both say that I'm putting you on Ignore in order to spare you further embarrassment. You can reply, but if your responses are as foolish as what you've posted so far, then I not only won't miss you--I'll look forward to your departure. Let me know how I can help to expedite it.

[basselope]

160. No, just the opposite.

You do follow a religion. You are going to vote for whoever has a D next to their name, no matter how destructive their policies may be to our future.

The democratic party is not fine.. it is shrinking and has been shrinking for years.. just like religion.

So sorry it didn't work out for you.

[King_Klonopin]

170. I love the screenplay dialogues in the movie "The Breakfast Club".

You're even less than insignificant.

Wow !

This comment reminds me of the way in which the character "Bender" was
shamed and invalidated by the other kids in the movie. Here at DU, it could be
interpreted as a D-Bag statement of contempt, deserving of an alert. But why
waste our time ? This is what I have come to expect on DU.

[Orrex]

178. Puh-leeze.

I've been insulted on DU many times over, and with far more poisonous language, so forgive me for failing to beat my breast with remorse.

I was responding directly to the claim that one voter's petulant departure from the Democratic party will be a damaging blow to that party. Viewed in those terms, with a childish ultimatum put forth if things don't go their way, then that voter is indeed less than insignificant.

This is what I have come to expect on DU.

We can only hope that you can muster the fortitude to endure these trying circumstances.

[King_Klonopin]

221. If you refuse to see that calling someone "less than insignificant" is complete assholery

then you are hopelessly insensitive, and incapable of introspective reflection.
And I don't expect you to EVER apologize or change.

Nice rationalizations for bad behavior.

[Orrex]

222. So you'll be voting for Clinton, then?

[djg21]

135. Bullshit.

If you want to vote in a Party's primary, join the party. It's pretty simple. If you want to make a political statement by electing not to register in a party, it is a free country and that is your choice. But having made your choice, you aren't in a position to complain that your vote was surpressed. You will presumably vote in the general for the party candidate you prefer. By the way, in New York you get a postcard confirming your registrationirrespective of whether you opt to enroll in a party.

[basselope]

143. It's STILL voter surpression.

No matter how you try to justify it, you are trying to EXCLUDE people from voting.

[brooklynite]

100. So, join the Party and vote for your choice.

[basselope]

103. I did, and i will be leaving the day after I vote.

I am not a fan of religions.

[brooklynite]

114. As a former Ward Committeeman, I thought that Parties derived from the grassroots...

...at least those who choose to get involved in Party organization, rather than just hide behind their keyboards.

[basselope]

118. Whatever they WERE at one time has become a den of corruption.

One of which I want no part or association.

[brooklynite]

119. I'll keep working to improve things from the inside...

...you can keep complaining from the outside.

[basselope]

129. Oh yeah.. your strategy has worked SO WELL.

Oh wait.. it hasn't. Its only gotten worse and worse and worse.

So much so that MOST people no longer are affiliated with political parties.

[leftynyc]

30. The let Independents have a primary

for their own candidate. The same independents you claim are being disenfranchised could just as easily be republicans who want to fuck with a Democratic primary. Why is this so hard to understand?

[basselope]

42. For the same reason we have voter ID laws to protect against in person voter fraud.

IT doesn't happen.

No one is trying to fuck a democratic primary and even the very FEW who make that decision are so small in number they have no impact on the actual outcome.

Why do the democrats insist in living inside a tiny bubble?

[leftynyc]

44. You mean

Why do DEMOCRATS insist that only DEMOCRATS pick the DEMOCRATIC nominee? Gee, that's a tough one.

[basselope]

47. Actually... it is a tough one.

Which is why Schumer penned that piece for open primaries.

Get out of your tiny bubble.

[leftynyc]

51. And it got him nowhere

What bubble am I supposedly in? The one where Democrats pick the Democratic nominee? i don't want independents or republicans picking my nominee.

[basselope]

92. Yes, that is a very tiny bubble.

And why each election comes down to people having to "hold their nose" to vote for someone, or not voting at all. Why does the US have such low voter turnout??? Maybe b/c of the pathetic candidates that come out of the primaries.

The whole point of Schumer's article is that closed primaries lead to weak candidates.

Hillary won't ever be president b/c she is such a weak candidate, but those living in the bubble can't figure that out.

[leftynyc]

171. Can you give me the

winning lottery numbers while you're at the wild guessing game? If you think anyone who lives in NY - the media capital of the world, is in a bubble, you're a bit delusional. One of us will be holding their nose - that much is certain.

[basselope]

214. Hardly a "wild guess".

I don't think people who live in NY are in a bubble.. I know it. You are a shining example.

I KNOW I won't be holding my nose and voting in November.

[GulfCoast66]

161. Then find an Independent candidate

I will be fine with either candidate winning so any insults about my candidate will be wasted. My candidate is the Democratic Party nominee. But I am totally opposed to open primaries. Political parties are private entities and the members should be the ones picking their candidates. The irony of a lifelong independent Democratic Socialist finally joining the Democratic Party, using their election infrastructure and then complaining about the parties rules is there for all to see. And had all the supposedly massive numbers of 'progressive independents' actually joined the party and worked for candidates that reflected their views then the party would, well reflect their views. But instead the took the 'high road' and spurned those corrupt political parties.

If Mr. Sanders actually finds a way to secure the nomination, which would not bother me at all, I cannot wait to see the reaction of his supporters when he actually starts making compromises. Because compromise is the basis of our political system.

[basselope]

163. If Sanders is not the nominee, I will be.

It is a shame that the democrats have to resort to vote suppression for the establishment to get its way.

We all understand compromise... capitulation (like when Obama gave away the public option) is a whole different story.

[GulfCoast66]

165. Do as you will. No attack from me

But I wonder where you live. Not asking for a response but making my point. If you live in New York City perhaps Hillary Clinton does look like the devil incarnate. Try living in Florida. Without a Democratic presidency we got nothing down here. I can't count on the city, county or state government looking out for my rights. So while I might prefer a Sander's presidency, having a Democratic president is incredibly important. And when the president is all you have looking after your rights, Hillary Clinton looks a hell of a lot better than what the Republicans are offering.

Please keep this in mind when casting your vote. America is a big place and this election is more important for some than others.

[all american girl]

36. I agree with you. This Oct thing is stupid.

Who thinks about an April primary in Oct? I also think they should have early voting. More Dems voting the better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. I agree, close em all

We taxpayers should not have to pay for them.

By the way, our elections, especially the primaries, hardly meet the most basic of international standards we point at others.

[beastie boy]

18. Any evidence of the Clintons not wanting it now except... it's too late now?

Temporal obstructionism! Why don't they stop time to fix this?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. New York has it's traditions....

[Fast Walker 52]

15. I really hope that this year prompt some severe action on voting rights by our next president

this system, or collection of state systems, is insane.

[beastie boy]

21. Be careful what you are wishing for (nightmare scenario: President Cruz)

[Fast Walker 52]

90. haha, indeed

[LiberalFighter]

26. The federal government is limited on what they can do.

But there are likely ways to work around it. It has control over federal elections. It has limited control over state related elections and primaries.

[LiberalFighter]

23. It is a Democratic Party Primary...

Not a "Anybody Party Primary".

If they don't want to be associated with the Democratic Party then they should not be deciding the nominee.

49.1% Democrats
23.8% Republicans
01.4% Conservative
00.2% Green Party
00.4% Working Families
04.0% Independence
00.0%+ Women's Eqaulity
00.0%+ Reform Party
00.0%+ Other
20.9% No Party Specified

[BlueMTexpat]

48. IMO, this cannot be stressed

enough.

I like MD's voting system much better than New York's. http://www.elections.state.md.us/voting/

But I also believe that ALL primaries should be closed. Otherwise, there is too much flagrant mischief-making from non-party members, as we have seen all too clearly in this cycle.

[stopbush]

54. Agreed. Primaries should be closed. We are selecting a candidate, not electing anyone to

a government position. The SCOTUS has ruled that political parties are private enterprises that have wide latitude in deciding how the select their candidates.

In fact, when the SCOTUS struck down CA's blanket primary in 2000 by a 7-2 vote, it called into question the very concept of open primaries, finding that such non-closed primaries "force political parties to associate with (and) to have their nominees, and hence the positions, determined by those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival. Representative democracy . . . is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views,"

[BlueMTexpat]

57. Great find and one that should be

SHOUTED OUT all over DU!

[Kingofalldems]

24. It must be Hillary's fault.

She caused the whole thing I bet.

[pnwmom]

53. This has been New York's law for DECADES, so unless she time-traveled and got their legislators

to pass the law, no, she didn't cause it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

74. Of course, she time-traveled back

to change NY's election laws just for this single opportunity! Just like Barack Obama traveled back in time to alter his Birth Certificate and other vital records to ensure that he could be elected POTUS in 2008! /s

[LonePirate]

82. Some of us appreciate your effort to keep the conspiracy theorists frothing with anger

They can be quite amusing when they toss all reason out the window and start spewing their inanities.

[Kingofalldems]

78. It was sarcasm.

[pnwmom]

79. Since many people here think she "rigged" it, your post might benefit from a smilie.

[SmittynMo]

25. The state of New York,,,,,,

IS FUCKED UP!!! Can't make it any simpler than that.

[Igel]

84. It's viewed that way because

people don't get what the parties are. They think that somehow they're part of the established constitutional or election system, instead of just being how things are because they suit a lot of the population. NYS could move to a caucus system and dispose of their primaries next year if they wanted to.

Parties are independent organizations where members act collectively for their common good. They choose a candidate, and the party infrastructure then supports that candidate on behalf of the collective. Other candidates can self-nominate, but they have some serious disadvantages. There are numerous parties in NYS. Some are regional.

In some senses, they're like unions. The UAW and NEA make a lot of decisions that affects a lot of people--not just union members, but non-union workers in the same organizations, the management, consumers of products and services. But when it comes to who's going to decide the UAW or NEA elected officials, it's a closed election because ultimately, whatever the blather and bloviation, the UAW and NEA looks out for its own members. We fall for the palaver when we need to convince others, but when the unions make decisions that adversely affect non-union workers, it's a point of pride that the union looks after its own first and foremost.

Same with parties.

Perhaps the parties' cut-offs for membership are too early. I'm not a New Yorker these days, so I get no say, and properly so. Because the NY (D) party is, first and foremost, for NY (D) voters.

In Texas, you join a party when you go to the polls to vote in a primary. They're closed, but open. It's like a 2-second party registration cut-off for already-registered voters. In fact, if you don't vote and declare a party you're essentially an independent until the next election. And still we have complaints. If there's a run-off--and sometimes there is--then you can't vote unless you voted in the primary and are in the right party. A lot of de facto independents suddenly take notice, some voters in the other party take notice, and suddenly want to have a say. But can't.

For the life of me, though, I've never understood why anybody would ever register as an independent in some states except as a pre-vote of disapproval. It gets you nothing, ever--it doesn't let you do anything a party member can do, ever. But it can amount to self-disenfranchisement. And if there are any limits that a lot of people truly hate, it's the limits they place on themselves as a consequence of a choice, esp. an uninformed choice. (It's a twofer: It says you're not informed, a blow to the ego; and it says you made a bad choice, and were wrong--another blow to the ego. Of course, it's always somebody else's fault.)

[SoapBox]

27. We need a nationwide voting policy and system.

This hodge-podge of state by state garbage needs to be gone...and the roadblocks at every turn need to be stopped.

Our Right to Vote takes priority.

[Igel]

85. Remember, a lot of laws are state by state.

Tax rates.

Medical marijuana laws.

Whether illegal aliens are charged in-state tuition.

Minimum wage laws.

Medicaid and Medicare, at times.

More federalism means more federalism. We hate state rights except when we love them.

We like local control we we're in control; when we don't control things locally we want those far away to control things the way we'd like. As soon as those far away don't control things to suit us, of course, local control is where it's at, because we stand a better chance of effecting chance.

Thing is, that comes out as, "We need federal control. Period. As a matter of principle." Which alternates with, "We need local control. Period. As a matter of principle." (Of course, as long as our guy's in charge, we'd opt for federal control. Easier to get those areas where most people object to fall in line with the good and smart that way.)

[NobodyHere]

203. There is no right to vote in a party's primary.

[RoccoR5955]

28. You can blame this on

Tammany Hall. Many of these rules date back to then. NY decided to clean things up after the ordeal, and this is the sort of thing that happened.

[all american girl]

39. Yeah, maybe an update...into the 2000's might be nice. n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

52. Boy did they reform Alabama...

Some call it Gerrymandering. It's a critter that looks like a three-headed gopher.

[George II]

60. In 68 years of living in and around New York City, I never heard anyone complain about....

....New York's voting laws until just a couple of weeks ago.

I wonder why that is?

[stopbush]

66. Exactly. It's incumbent on every RESPONSIBLE citizen to make the effort

to learn the voting laws in their state. We know that the laws for getting a driver's license, opening a business or adding a room on your house differ from state to state. Start a renovation project on your property without first getting the required permits and you're asking for trouble.

States come up with their election laws to ensure that there's a standardized set of rules for everyone to follow to be able to vote, to insure the widest swath of people get to vote, and to keep election tampering at a minimum. To complain that you didn't know that you needed to change your Party affiliation last October to vote in the NY Democratic primary is equivalent to feeling disenfranchised because you weren't allowed to vote because you were only 16. There's no more reason to assume you can't vote at age 16 than there is to believe you didn't have to change your registration by a date certain. The law is there in both instances. All you need do is look it up.

[hueymahl]

189. You are right. They should make the rules tougher. Require literacy tests at least, or a poll tax

Oh, wait, that would discriminatory.

[stopbush]

200. Because it's so tough to go online and check the voting rules

in your state. Such a burden to the fragile souls who believe the world revolves around them. Why, it takes more energy than asking mom to drive you to the Sanders rally.

[hueymahl]

201. To go online you need access to a computer and internet

And the ability to read. And see.

Might as well add a poll tax while you are at it.

BTW, the nice ad hominem attack at the end? I love to see those - it means the other side of the debate has run out of material.

[stopbush]

202. Or you make a phone call to the BoE. Or you can call the offices

of any political party. Or, you ask your neighbor or your mom. You make some effort to learn the rules in your state. You don't assume the rules are whatever you want them to be.

How many lame excuses are you going to come up with to defend the willful ignorance and indifference of people whose vote means so little to them that they can't be bothered learning how to exercise it?

Deaf, blind or clueless, if you found a way to register to vote, you can find a way to check your voter status.

[Squinch]

86. As our friend Peggysue says, the hitchhikers are demanding the car keys again.

And from what I hear, the count so far is that there are 2.5 million more people involved in the heinous and satanic conspiracy against Sanders than those who are not involved in the conspiracy against Sanders.

OUTRAGEOUS! THIS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!@!!!

[hueymahl]

190. How is the air up there on your high horse?

[mhatrw]

68. If New York did not do its best to disenfranchise its voters, it would be

FAR, FAR more difficult for a Repuke Presidential candidate to win the popular vote in the USA, and the resulting "split decisions" when the Repukes cheat in Florida and Ohio would make it far harder to keep justifying the Electoral College.

[Bluenorthwest]

191. This is correct. The drop off in participation from 2010 to 2014:

More than half of the decline in votes from 2010 came in four states: Ohio, California, New York and Texas, the nonpartisan group Nonprofit VOTE said in today’s biennial report on voter turnout. The average turnout in those states was 30 percent, compared with 40 percent in the rest of the country.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/03/12/ohio-3-other-big-states-hurt-2014-election-turnout.html#

[octoberlib]

72. Forget the primaries. I find it disturbing that a BLUE state doesn't have

early voting and same day registration. Most Democrats want to make it easier for people to vote. I had no idea that NY's voting laws were so restrictive that right wing nutjobs were using them as model legislation. Jesus.

[hughee99]

81. Well said! When this happens in a red state, it's proof that the republicans are looking to

suppress the vote of the poor and minorities, but it happens in a blue state and there's a surprising lack of concern.

[octoberlib]

83. I guess NY Democrats also want to suppress the vote of the poor and minorities.

The question is WHY, since they usually vote Democratic. Things that make ya go hmmmm.

[bettyellen]

173. nope, it is the republicans who control it. so fed up with the BS.

[Bluenorthwest]

195. NY State House is in Democratic control by a large margin....

And yet they do not reform NY's antique and restrictive election laws. That's a fact NY must own.

More than half of the national drop off in turnout in 2014 came from 4 States: NY, CA, OH and TX. This is a problem for the entire country and the DNC.

[hueymahl]

192. This is an inconvenient truth

The democratic party in NY has a long history of disenfranchising voters. All these laws are a legacy of that.

[Uncle Joe]

96. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.

[dchill]

104. +63,558

(Fewer Democratic registered in Brooklyn.)

[pampango]

105. I don't have a problem with Democrats choosing Democratic candidates. I wish my candidate

were doing better in closed primaries and am miffed that he is not. But I should not be allowed to mess with the republican nomination process and they should not be allowed to mess with ours.

[Zen Democrat]

109. NY should be ashamed of these antiquated laws. Progressives support OPEN primaries.

And same day registration and voting. Conservatives want to suppress the vote. New York only holds on to such olde party practices to give more power to power. Tammany Hall?

[MadBadger]

155. Same day registration, fine, but why should I support an Open primary?

I'm a Democrat and I want the nominee to be picked by other Democrats.

[Agnosticsherbet]

117. So 27% of New York voters are independent, unaffiliated,

Or members of a party that does not have primary.

[liberal N proud]

127. Because they didn't pay attention to the rules which were set lang before deadlines

And we're set by the state election board.

[malokvale77]

128. Pretty soon...

they'll be sitting at a round table choosing the dear leaders, because there won't be enough eligible voters to hold elections.

It will be one big Happy Party.

"We The People" will be long forgotten and far from happy.

[vdogg]

149. Are you guys still crying about this?

This is NOT a new rule. Been in place for years. I suspect that if the roles were reversed, and Bernie did well with Dem voters and not independents we wouldn't see these endless posts and constant temper tantrums like we are now. I mean, how dare a party expect the people who choose its leader to actually be affiliated with the party...

[Bluenorthwest]

197. Forty Years of Freefall in New York Voter Turnout

"Voter turnout in New York State is in freefall. Last week's gubernatorial election saw the smallest number of voters make it to the polls in the four decades since the state Board of Elections was formed and began tracking voting. Few reports have noted the extent of the decline: Cuomo's 52.5 percent of the vote on election night may have seemed like the typical erosion of an incumbent's margin - down from 61 percent in 2010 - but it obscures a fall of nearly one million votes."
http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/5432-forty-years-of-freefall-in-new-york-voter-turnout

New York State Near Bottom in Voter Turnout Rankings- NYC Campaign Finance Board

New York City hit a historic low in voter turnout last November, but the latest report from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission makes it clear that our voter turnout crisis extends across New York State. After each federal election, the EAC collects data from election administrators around the country about voter registration and turnout for the best comparison for how states stack up against each other. New York routinely ranks near the bottom for turnout in EAC reports, and 2014 was no different. The state trailed the rest of the nation, ranking 46th for voter turnout among the citizen voting age population (CVAP). An abysmally low 29.1% of citizens age 18 or over cast a ballot last November – only slightly better than the 20% who turned out in New York City. New York can and should do more to encourage civic participation among voters — starting with reforming our outdated, restrictive election laws.
http://www.nyccfb.info/media/blog/new-york-state-near-bottom-voter-turnout-rankings

It's amazing to me that you are proud of having such crappy turnout year after year.

[vdogg]

199. Lol, proud of crappy turnout?

How in the hell did you construct that strawman out of the words that were in my post? I, quite literally, said NOTHING about turnout. I never even alluded to turnout. I simply addressed the right of a party to choose it's own leader. You're off on some completely different tangent.

[emsimon33]

150. K&R

[RandySF]

151. They made that choice by not choosing a party.

[Marrah_G]

158. This is very, very troubling

I don't care who you support, this type of voting issue should worry you.

[Thor_MN]

166. "The state of New York has no same-day registration. The state of New York has no preregistration."

For that to be true, New York could not have registered voters...

[billhicks76]

172. Hillary...Where Hope Goes To Die

[Democat]

177. DU...Where right wingers go to troll

Looking forward to the pro-Trump crowd leaving after the primaries, no matter which Democrat wins.

[billhicks76]

217. Your Comment Is An Unfunny Joke

The point in case you missed it is that, no matter how much obfuscation and deflection you attempt, Hillary is so centrist so acts like yesterday's Right Winger. And she has pushed the old right wingers further right into crazyland. It's the centrists fault like her. Her supporters are closer to the right wing with their support of war, prisons and Wall St. Debbie Wasserman Shultz invests in pay day lenders and just came out against Warrens Consumer Protection Agency. You don't get to claim to be a democrat anymore and support this crap...and you hardly get to insult and label a liberal like me a Trump supporter because you can't handle the truth. You would've flagged me if I called you that. But I'm not the hypocrite here am I. So sick of people like you who just aren't thinking properly. Go Bernie. Go Warren. Go Canova.

[Enthusiast]

174. It serves the purposes of those that profit from the status quo.

They don't want Wall Street abuses reined in.

It has become really obvious.

[elleng]

176. Exactly

[hueymahl]

194. Bingo - that is the reason for virtually all restrictive voter registration laws

[Democat]

175. Republicans want to vote in Democratic elections and we should care?

This is a forum for Democrats.

[MichMan]

179. Crossover mischief can happen

I am in favor of closed primaries. Too much opportunity for malicious crossover voting by either side. This is especially a problem when an incumbent is running like Obama in 2012 or Bush in 2004.

For those who think it never happens, I beg to differ. My state, Michigan, has a governor that has been characterized as one of the worst in the country. We have open primaries. In the 2010 election, Gov. Jennifer Granholm was term limited and with the state reeling in economic recession due to the auto industry, it was fairly obvious based on polling that a Repug was going to win. Her Lt Governor, John Cherry and other prominent Democrats all refused to run leaving it to "America's Angriest Mayor" Lansing Mayor Virg Benero and a somewhat obscure Mich House Speaker, Andy Dillon.

The Republican race had several candidates including a few prominent politicians and an unknown businessman Rick Snyder. With rather widespread crossover voting with 66% of the voters voting in the Repug primary, Rick Snyder was a surprise winner. It appeared that Democratic crossover voters wanted to play spoiler by making sure the better known politicians were defeated by someone with no political history.

Well the problem was that Snyder won easily over Benero by 20 pts, as expected and the "non political" businessman enacted right to work, instituted a pension tax on previously tax free public pensions, signed a controversial Emergency manager law and others. To this day, I blame the Democratic crossover voters for ensuring he won the primary

[Bluenorthwest]

188. That's a Straw Man. NY's election problems are not because it has a closed primary. My State has a

closed Primary but we have high turnout and well informed voters. We do not make people register 6 months in advance, we do not have limited polling hours nor any of the other restrictions that NY State has.

11 States have closed Primaries. Only NY has a 6 month lead time on registrations from another Party. PA, it's 30 days out.

The fact that you have a narrative to tell means nothing to me. I think your narrative is full of shit and missing important details like turnout figures.

"The state wide average turnout for the 2010 election was 49.22%, meaning that this percentage of eligible voters actually voted. The average voter turnout for state wide offices in 2006 was 53.25%, significantly higher than in 2010."
http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/archives/2010/TheRepublicanSweep2.pdf

Then 2014: "Ohio tied for the nation’s seventh-largest voting drop (22 percent) from 2010 to 2014.

With 36.2 percent of eligible voters in Ohio casting a ballot in the November 2014 general election, the state was 34th in turnout, compared with 19th in the 2012 presidential election"
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/03/12/ohio-3-other-big-states-hurt-2014-election-turnout.html#

Your voters do not vote much. With that crappy turnout. 'cross overs' and such are just not in play. Your registered Democrats do not bother to vote for Democrats.

[zentrum]

180. There's a long history

…..of tremendous machine politics in NY. This might be one of the legacies of that. The hardest thing of all to change is a system's culture.

[George II]

205. ALL registered voters in New York are able to vote in the primaries, they just had to register...

....for a party. Simple.

[Tarc]

206. The lies just keep on pouring out

If a person wishes to participate in the Democratic Party primary, then they should register with the Democratic Party.

No one, no institution, is preventing that.

[JoeyT]

210. That's fair enough.

Also fair is for the people you've told have no say in the process to refuse to vote for whoever you pick.

You can't have it both ways.

[Tarc]

211. It's you conscience, bro

I'm sure those with white privilege would get by well enough under a Trump administration. Persons of color? Not so much, which is why I'd vote for Sanders in the fall in a heartbeat if he were the nominee.

[JoeyT]

218. That only counts if you're only counting Americans.

If you take all the poor brown people around the world, Hillary won't be much better than Trump.

My fiancee never met any of her family on her father's side past her father because of Kissinger's illegal bombing campaigns. After Hillary snuggled up to him and tried to redeem his murderous legacy, I'm guessing she won't have her vote.

[oberliner]

219. Because they chose not to be a member of a party when they registered

If you want to vote in the Democratic Party primary, register as a Democrat.

If you want to vote in the Republican Party primary, register as a Republican.

If you don't want to vote in either primary, register as an independent.

As a Democrat, I do not want Republicans voting in a Democratic primary.