MNSBC: Why does New York Make it So Hard to Vote?

[LiberalElite]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-does-new-york-make-it-so-hard-vote
snip
In recent years, restrictions on voting in Republican-controlled states from Arizona to North Carolina and Texas to Wisconsin have kept large numbers of legitimate voters from the polls and sparked national outrage. But another state with voting rules almost as strict has largely escaped attention: deep blue New York.

Now, as Tuesday’s presidential primaries approach, the Empire State’s woeful record on access to the ballot is at last coming under scrutiny. That’s thanks in part to Donald Trump’s kids, Ivanka and Eric, who said they won’t be voting for their dad Tuesday in the GOP primary because they missed the deadline to change their party affiliation from independent to Republican. (New York, like many states, has closed primaries.) Ivanka blamed New Yorks “onerous” rules.

Trump’s lawyer and longtime consigliere Michael Cohen, a registered Democrat, has admitted he’s in the same spot.
snip

xposting in Sanders group and New York

[northernsouthern]

1. Yeah.

Several HRCers on the DU are applauding the 6 month restriction since they think only the mature and their friends should vote.

[zalinda]

2. No, it's not that

they think if only Democrats can vote, Hillary will win. They will be surprised on how many Democrats really don't want Hillary.

Z

[northernsouthern]

4. That is part of it.

But that was their exact wording. It was an extremely elitist attitude. The poster did not back, just pulled a Hillary and told be to join the system if I wanted to fix it. I told them I actually already was, and I am voting Sunday as a delegate. From the sounds of it we can give a speech if we apply for the next level of delegates.

[MisterP]

14. it's not just wanton stupidity: they're enforcers under the current system

they don't get paid but get psychological benefits of being part of a greater machine that can smash people, the vicarious glee of someone going down to defeat

[djg21]

11. Party raiding is the concern

NY's statutes delaying enrollment in a party by those previously enrolled in another party is intended to prevent party raiding, i.e., blocks of enrolled voters switch parties to strategically vote in the primary of another party in the hope of nominating a weaker candidate. This law doesn't apply to those who are unenrolled, and does make some sense.

[closeupready]

21. If you believe that, then you'll believe anything.

[anigbrowl]

26. Well there's abundant historical evidence of that happening

Rush Limbaugh attempted to organize his listeners to do exactly this in 2008.

[djg21]

40. It's more apt to happen . . .

When one party has an incumbent running or a very strong candidate who is not facing a real primary challenge. I don't see much likelihood of party raiding this election cycle. But that doesn't mean that the concern isn't valid. And by the way, SCOTUS recognized this concern as legitimate in upholding NY's preceding delayed enrollment statute in Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973).

[closeupready]

42. Point is, the response to the threat was disproportionate.

As it remains now.

[daleanime]

28. +1

[liberal N proud]

30. Here is how I see it...

The rules were set well ahead of the primary process. Everyone is subject to the same rules. It is the responsibility of each and every voter in each and every state know the rules and restrictions and to abide by them to vote.

You only hear those who are trailing in the polls complain about these rules. And they wait until a few days before or after the contest to complain, no one ever complains about this before it is too late.

So cry me a river if you failed to meet the requirements to vote in your state.

[yeoman6987]

32. It does not make sense to me that Trump kids, the college students for Bernie,

or the supporters for Hillary can't just go down to the voting precinct and give a signature and vote for who they want. I don't see why it should be so difficult to vote for the candidate of choice on primary day. New York. This is a travesty at best.

[Eric J in MN]

38. +1 (NT)

NT

[LonePirate]

3. Why even have party primaries? Just throw all candidates into the same primary.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Greens, etc. all on the same primary ballot clamoring for a spot in the top two so they can appear on the GE ballot. Problem solved! If people want open primaries, let's implement true open primaries. None of this half-assed crap where wishy washy independents indulge their false entitled nature and pick and choose what primary they want to participate in this year.

[strategery blunder]

5. The deadline to switch party registration fell before the first Democratic debate.

That is absurd.

Moreover, we know party registrations were changed in Arizona without the command nor consent of the voter. If a corrupt voter registrar did the same in New York, the laws on changing voter registration are so restrictive as to render such malfeasance literally not correctable. The voter wouldn't be able to change the voter registration back, even if said voter had not initiated the change.

[Sgent]

6. Why should I need

to see a debate to know that I'm a Democrat?

[strategery blunder]

7. Why should I need to check my registration to know that I'm a Democrat?

Yet some Democrats in Arizona found that they were not actually Democrats. It was a complete surprise to them because they had registered as Democrats.

Their registrations were changed without their knowledge. That was all over DU after the AZ primary. Bernie cut Hillary's margin there by about 4% after the provisional ballots were counted IIRC.

The fact that NY has the most restricted primary in the nation makes this type of uncommanded registration change even more difficult to correct than it was in Arizona. If you piss off the wrong county bureaucrat in NY, and they change your registration entry in the database without notice, you won't get to vote in the primary through no fault of your own.

[Eric J in MN]

8. Yes. Just like laws against felons voting lets them disenfranchise

...law-abiding citizens by saying, "You're listed as a suspected felon," laws against non-Democrats voting lets them bar Democrats from voting by saying, "You're listed as an Independent (or a Republican)."

If you're an adult citizen, you should be allowed to vote.

[randome]

12. You are allowed to vote in the GE. You have no RIGHT to vote for the Democratic Party nominee.

Just as you have no RIGHT to vote for the Republican nominee.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Eric J in MN]

20. There is no party registration in 22 states. That includes MN and VT.

It's a better system.

People are encouraged to vote, including young liberals who don't see themselves as members of the Democratic Party, but probably will AFTER voting in a Democratic primary or two.

No disenfranchisement because of mistakes with party registration (by the voter or the party or the state government).

[NYC Liberal]

29. No, it's a horrible system. Open primaries should be done away with.

Why should Republican rat fuckers get to screw around with selecting our candidates? (And why should Democrats get to do the same to Republicans?)

If someone can't even be bothered to look up the rules for something as important as voting, they don't have a whole lot of credibility.

[yeoman6987]

33. Well maybe but six months before the primary is a bit too long for a deadline

I can see 30 days. There are a ton of college students who will not be able to vote now. And no I am not for Bernie or Hillary and will vote for either one in November, but I think stopping anyone from voting is a huge injustice. Arbitrary rules for nothing sucks. And your point is valid but I still think voting rights "trumps" the game play. I am not even sure how often that actually happens. It definitely wouldn't happen in 2016 due to both parties having a very competitive primary.

[Eric J in MN]

34. Most people want to vote for candidates they support.

The risk of a Republican voting in a Democratic primary is small compared to the problems with party registration:

- Making it more difficult to vote.
- Disenfranchising people through data errors about party registration.
- Discouraging young people from voting who don't see themselves as party members at that stage of their lives (but will when they're older).

[LonePirate]

13. My idea for truly open primaries would put an end to your complaint about the deadline being absurd.

[dsc]

15. because it is a horrible idea

that allows for a dilution of the parties and moderation of the candidates. It also can cause a place that is majority one party to be represented by the other one. California has this system now and what has happened is that in heavily Democratic and liberal areas the more conservative candidate has been able to win by getting GOP votes. You get the Lieberman effect so to speak.

[LonePirate]

19. So you're in favor of closed primaries then?

I can respect that opinion because the arguments for it make sense at least. This view of disliking closed primaries because a person is an independent and they want the ability to choose which primary to vote in depending on their mood that day is as lame as can be.

[anigbrowl]

27. It's kinda weird that proposers of open primaries don't look at the negatives

We have plenty of examples. It's like when people call for term limits, without bothering to address how they don't have the expected effect in practice. CA's open primary system is really not that great and I'd say we still have a lot of dysfunction in our state despite having a good governor.

[Eric J in MN]

35. Open primaries mean more liberal candidates nominated by the Democratic Party

...because young people are generally liberal and generally don't see themselves as members of the Democratic Party at that stage of their lives.

[jwirr]

17. If I am not mistaken our first 3-4 presidents were elected

that way. No party just vote and the top one gets to be the president and the next is VP. There must have been some reason why the parties came into existence. Before getting rid of parties I would like to know the history of that time.

[NobodyHere]

24. There were always some form of political parties or factions

In the beginning we had Hamiltonian vs the Jeffersonians.

[NobodyHere]

25. Why have primaries?

So political parties can rally around a specific candidate in the general election.

If the Democrats ran 3 candidates and the Republicans ran 1 then the Republicans would win every single time.

[Eric J in MN]

9. There is no party registration in 22 states. That includes MN and VT.

In MN US Senate primaries, everybody gets the same ballot.

There is a section with Democratic candidates listed and a section with Republican candidates listed. People can mark a choice in either section but both.

It's simpler, it encourages voting, and it should be the system in every state.

[smirkymonkey]

10. That has always frustrated me about NY.

Born and raised, but live in MA now. I distinctly remember my dad telling me about that and being shocked.

[jwirr]

16. I suspect this is connected to tradition. NY is famous for its

political machines of the past when the Democratic Party was for the people and the Rs for the corporations/bankers. When the Democratic Party has been in the majority this worked but now more.

They should be changing it to fit the times.

[Retrograde]

18. Voting regulations are determined by state legislators

State legislators are generally elected in non-presidential year elections - the ones so many of the populace decide to sit out because "our votes don't matter" or "all parties are the same". And so the party in power stays in power. The GOP has been playing the long game for a long time: get power in the states, restrict voting for those likely to be left-leaning, redistrict so as to control Congress => PROFIT!

New York is particularly bad: if you want to change party affiliation you have to do it well in advance, no early voting, difficult to get an absentee ballot, different polling hours in non-general elections in different counties (just found out about that one!). And they're not new: the party change one was challenged and upheld by the US Supreme Court back in the 1960s.

It used to be even worse: when I first registered to vote in New York State, there was a one year residency requirement, and you had to show up in person at the county office. I'm glad I vote in California now, where things are much, much simpler.

[yeoman6987]

36. when I first registered to vote in New York State, there was a one year residency requirement,

Holy cow. What crap. Did you get to vote in your previous state at least until eligibility in New York. This primary has been more shocking then I ever could imagine on history and even current rules of things. I still to this day will never understand how Bernie wins a state and gets lower delegate number. That should NEVER happen. I actually think that they should just give the electoral number to the winner and the rest don't get any delegates. We do this in the general anyway so why not the primary?

[Retrograde]

41. That was in the 1960s/early70s

I first got interested in politics when Robert Kennedy was running for the Senate from New York: as a recent arrival, he was unable to vote for himself in the November election, much less the primary. I don't know if he was eligible to vote in Massechusetts that year: I doubt he did. (to answer your question - it was a moot point for me since I had been a New York resident all my life and registered as soon as I legally could.)

Of course the system is rigged in favor of the two big parties: they made the rules so they could stay in power. California's new open primary system for every office but president may sound good at a casual glance, but what's happening is that smaller parties, such as the Greens, have very little chance of making their voices heard.

[DCBob]

22. Helps prevent the other side from playing games with the nominating process of the opposing party.

Remember "Operation Chaos"?

[yeoman6987]

37. I don't think that is a good enough reason to shut out voters

Yes Operation Chaos was awful but not even sure it worked. It was mostly a waste of time for the GOP.

[DCBob]

39. No one is "shut out".

If someone wants to vote Democrat.. they only need to register as a Democrat. Easy breezy!

[Bluenorthwest]

23. New York has lousy turnout as a result of their voting restrictions. They should be ashamed.

2014 they were worse than any State other than Indiana and Texas, 29% turnout. Voter apathy and habitual non participation.

[NYC Liberal]

31. This is nothing new. People can't even be bothered to know the rules

when those rules have been in place for years. I have zero sympathy for them.

Screw open primaries. I don't want right-wingers picking our candidates, and that's exactly what they do when they exploit open primaries trying to sabotage our nomination.

[closeupready]

43. By the way to answer the question, incumbents like it that way.

Because a low voter turnout favors incumbents and party machinery.

[whistler162]

44. Let us see... three people close to the Donald

couldn't be bothered to switch party affiliation in the 9+ months since the Donald announced his candidacy.

Yup, that is what I call a failure of the New York primary system.

It is a party primary NOT a nation election to create a run off race in November. The parties could always go back to the old system of backroom selection.