2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy do you mock people for wanting to vote? When did you lose what makes you a democrat?
Honestly, partisan politics aside the fact that so many people here are mocking the fact that people who want to participate in our democracy can't is incredibly disheartening and speaks louder about who you are as a person then any policy stance or candidate choice could.
It's time people step out of the politics of the moment and re-evaluate what it means to be a member of the "big tent" party.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)The Democratic Party I grew up knowing is dead.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)For my entire life, spineless Democrats have clung to the "middle of the road," refusing to believe the plain truth that nothing belongs there except yellow stripes and dead 'possums.
-app
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Definitely one of the old progressive folkies like him, with roots back to the Wobblies/IWW. Have you heard his collaboration with Ani DiFranco? I admire her so much for seeking him out before his time was up, and allowing their collaboration to reach a whole new generation.
Anyway, whoever first coined the phrase, it rang true then, and rings even truer now.
-app
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)...at the turn of the last century. Wish we had a Labor movement in general.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Our party is no longer nourishing and it smells as roadkill mentioned above
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)casperthegm
(643 posts)I will never vote Republican and still hold Democratic ideals (or at least what used to be dem ideals), but I am now and independent. My hope is we either lead the party to a correction, showing them that corporate greed, fracking, and war mongering are not the way, or form a new party that incorporates real Democratic values.
Zira
(1,054 posts)I just got a post hidden for saying I would likely vote to stop that any way I can.
2 of the comments said I should be banned.
I am really sorry I donated a penny to this site.
There is no real free speech here and I'm about to flee. Apparently you have to support the Dem party no matter how corrupt and that defines the Hillarians - People who will support corruption no matter what if it's in their own party. They call themselves liberals and progressives and support no real liberal or progressive values. Despicable.
I can't do that and I can't be around that.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I'll let you guess which juror I am.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:38 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, find something to do with your time. I've seen much worse than this. Go take a bubble bath or read a good book.
Zira
(1,054 posts)We should call it the Progressive Party. We should use the symbol of the bird I found on internet and that's in my tag. I don't know who made it so it's a copyright infringement though but I'd bet they'd be willing to let a new actually liberal progressive party use it.
I can only see a mass exodus from the Dem party coming out of this election. The extreme voter suppression is the final straw. I bet it doesn't survive the minute after they nominate Hillary.
and probably a few million more
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)One that favors cooperation instead of competition. Freedom and fairness. Based on ethical human ideals, that transcends ethnicity, religion, color or national boundaries.
DookDook
(166 posts)I think it's because some people look at politics more as sport, so they're not really concerned with the destruction and pain their candidate may cause they just want to win.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)Thank you! you've made me happy on this night the DNC appears to be stealing another election via mass voter suppression.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)brush
(53,868 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)My state's already voted, and when the GE rolls around, they're going to vote red so my vote doesn't matter anyway-- what pisses me off is the corporate kowtowing the party seems more than content to keep doing. I remember democrats being more than dancing puppets, but hey, maybe I saw things through a filter of youth and they've always been that way.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is all. Now it is obvious
brush
(53,868 posts).99center
(1,237 posts)It's no ones fault but the ignorant. We should put as many barriers as possible to keep the ignorant out of our elections.
brush
(53,868 posts)That is not the same as voter ID laws rammed through by repugs to stop dems from voting.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)and changed my registration from I to D. It took 5 minutes. I knew to do it.
Anyone who didn't must not be serious about their franchise or very poorly informed. These are longstanding rules.
It really just wasn't that hard to deal with the rules.
.99center
(1,237 posts)Access and knowledge of the internet as you? I've heard the same bullshit about other rules and laws which make it harder to vote, never heard it come from the Democratic party though.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)So, now they can feel as selfish and superior as humanly possible.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)In Tennessee, I only need register. We may be backward in a lot of ways, but at least we have open primaries so Independents get a say, even if that's only to drive votes to one of the two major parties.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Right after I posted that, I got an alert that the Tennessee legislature will now allow us to register online.
Timing is everything...
https://t.co/KFDzZU8kwd
So, apparently, now I can just go online and register if I should ever move or anything. I'm already registered and have been since the day after I turned 18.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)...doesn't matter if your affiliation is mysteriously switched, or your vote is stolen.
brush
(53,868 posts)eShirl
(18,503 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Hiding which candidate each delegate is pledged to, is obvious manipulation. It's the sort of thing that a party does when it believes that its preferred candidate will do better with a coin flip than with a motivated voter.
brush
(53,868 posts)That's his campaign's responsibility. Perhaps more time should've been spent on securing delegates instead of having the huge rallies.
And btw, all those people at the rallies and not enough delegates fielded surely someone in those huge crowds could've been the delegates needed.
What's up with that?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)We are probably more informed than most Americans, because we are involved in politics all the time, and yet there are DU members who weren't aware of some of their own state voting rules because it never affected them before, and a lot of it is pretty complicated (caucuses).
I think it's harsh to blame only voters for being uninformed. I think it's the responsibility of the state and the parties to make sure their citizens are completely informed. Just like college. It's not just the student's responsibility to learn. It's the state's/parent's/high school's responsibility to make sure they do by helping them afford it and encouraging them to go. But we don't teach our students about voting rules in school. It's something they have to research on their own, and the rules change state to state. Too many people are tuned out on politics, so while they may make the effort to be registered to vote, they may not know all the rules...so when an anomaly like Sander's switching parties to run hits them unawares, they can be left out of the process.
I agree with another poster here who suggested the Sander's campaign should have been more on top of educating people in the different states about their rules and deadlines. Before those deadlines were passed.
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)It's all done by Party leadership?
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)The choice was already made behind the scenes, this is just the dog and pony show leading up to the big reveal. Smoke and mirrors, stage illusions. I could have gone to a local stageplay of Hamlet and been more entertained by all this horseshit.
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)Are you saying the ONLY legitimate outcome was Sanders winning?
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)No, the DNC made the choice that Hillary was to be the nominee, and while I wholly align myself with Sanders and thank him for being the spanner in the works, to the utter exclusion of ANYTHING to do with Hillary, I'm more than cognizant that the fix was in before the first round started.
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)...are you saying that YOU were clever enough to see Sanders' merits, but the average voter just isn't as smart as you?
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I won't be WillyT'd so easily, though.
What I'm saying is, this cycle has given me reason to lose faith both in the morality of the people I once assumed to be my peers, and in the concept that a Democrat is supposed to be a progressive. But then again, I have problems seeing civvies who look at the military like pawns for unethical regime changes as my peers in the first place-- so hey!
brush
(53,868 posts)enough to go after so he lost all those delegates, otherwise he could very well be leading in the delegate count.
That is not on the DNC, that is directly on the Sanders' campaign's disregard of the importance of the Obama coalition in winning (twice, in '08 and '12) the black vote in the southern states, and all states btw, is a key segment of that coalition and the full democratic constituency (blacks, Latino Americans, gays, Asian Americans, women, Native Americans, and progressive whites BUT NOT JUST PROGRESSIVE WHITES).
It is no one's fault but the Sanders' campaign that they didn't recognize that soon enough, especially in New York where there is splendid, multi-colored diversity.
All in it together
(275 posts)Don't keep misleading people.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)In fact, I teach high school civics classes.
In Norway, you have to be a member of a party, and attend your local party convention in order to participate in the decision of who will be the party's candidates. You have to be a card carrying member. No one outside the party has a vote or a voice. The candidate for prime minister, however, isn't decided by all the party members. That's decided by the delegates elected by the local conventions for the national convention, and there's no pledged delegates.
In the general election, each voter can decide to vote for whomever they want, they can even write in their apolitical neighbor if they want. But the parties decide who the candidates for prime minister are, without the voices of a majority of the voters. Because in democratic countries, it's accepted that all can vote in the general election, but only party members can vote in party elections.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)We've got quite a few Third Wayers here, and it always feels like talking to Republicans, because they hold Republican values and attitudes.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)otherwise we get called Nazis, misogynists, racists, tea partiers, and the like... It's like we're supposed to hold our nose and pretend the vulture-esque reek of dead things isn't all over them.
840high
(17,196 posts)Dad (RIP) is not here to see it.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Sure, one is clearly better than the other, Bernie.
But Hillary is a literal socialist herself when compared to anybody on the right.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)or killed?
Then your premise falls on its face; I only have one.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)We haven't even hit Thursday yet... No, if the worst happens, I'm either voting Stein, or just voting downticket dems and leaving the presidential selection blank. My state'll go for the warhawks under their proper name, and my vote won't have mattered as it is.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)You know if I cant have Bernie I am gonna be pissed too, but I am not going to relegate women, gays, minorities to 2nd class citizens because I didnt get what I wanted.
Oh well...some of us will do that, some of us wont.
Speaking of REPUGNANT
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Pansexual, biracial, and in the military. Voting for Hillary is tantamount to voting for a risk to put a bullet in my head in an unethical and completely unnecessary regime change. I won't add myself to her body count.
/bye.
Response to VulgarPoet (Reply #104)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)SMH
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Don't let anyone tell you that you have to vote for her. Much respect.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)We'll all still be second-class citizens. That won't change.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)changes if GOP steals the WH.
And if you are not a white, straight, protestant male, I submit you are not a student of history or paying attention.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I prefer the more authentic People's History, rather than the fictional version.
We'll still be second class citizens under Clinton, and it won't make a bit of difference if you are gay, a women, black, brown, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or just a loaf of pumpernickel bread; the fact of the matter is she'll be deaf to anyone who isn't a corporate executive. In her mind, there is only one kind of person who matters, and that's a corporation who will pay the kind of money for policy decisions that will benefit said corporation.
You think she cares about gay people? Hahaha. She prefers asexual corporate monoliths.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I prefer a universal health care system with a single payer so that everyone will have access to providers regardless of gender, nationality, religion, health, age, status, class, or the ability to pay.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I don't see the point of either question.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)You don't have to leave it blank.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Come on in out of the cold.
PatrickforO
(14,587 posts)do not soon reorganize our societies around human need rather than human greed, this planet might literally cast us off. We've got to stop being a cancer on the Earth and start making policy decisions that affect our species as a whole.
vintx
(1,748 posts)Fuck this shit. Seriously.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,339 posts)I swear a lot of the comments on du lately could be lifted from freeper comments in the Star Tribune whining about people having the vote counted.
demmiblue
(36,885 posts)...both sides' supporters have escalated this so far that they have effectively dehumanized each other.
Edit: And I mean that in general terms. It only takes a few horrible people on either side to cause this back and forth escalation.
Edit2: And guys, the OP is asking why we (as in Hillary supporters) mock them not why we disagree about this.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)demmiblue
(36,885 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Our Republican Third Way "Democratic" candidate uses the same rule book as her buddy Shrub.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)would mean the status quo is no longer when she won before. They don't want anyone rocking their Hillary boat. But it's sinking little by little.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)It's not their voting or wanting to vote that is being mocked.
It's their complete ineptitude in helping themselves achieve their goal of voting that is being mocked.
If anyone could go in at anytime without being registered or following the laws and rules, we really wouldn't be a democracy.
It would be chaos.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)demmiblue
(36,885 posts)WTF
floriduck
(2,262 posts)But these critics are clueless on the issues of the injunction request. If roles were reversed, they'd have peed their pants and thrown a fit.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Because being able to follow basic rules isn't one.
treestar
(82,383 posts)This is about registering. Are you again that too? Is it voter suppression to require voters to register ?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)well let's just say that's the sort of thing I have heard Republicans say in response to voter purging and election fraud.
I thought you were against victim blaming?
.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)vote." Typical blame the victim. Rationalizing disenfranchisement. "What ever it takes to win."
Svafa
(594 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Ineptitude should not prevent a citizen from having a voice (a vote) in their self-governance. That's the whole point.
Voting is not an aptitude test. It the expression of choice.
Democracy, for liberals, means ALL the people.
Paper Roses
(7,475 posts)LisaM
(27,830 posts)And I sure didn't see a lot of griping about those. Just the "seven out of eight wins!" mantra over and over and over. They represent about the smallest faction of voting possible (and they are intimidating to attend).
senz
(11,945 posts)They at least offer the opportunity to vote.
LisaM
(27,830 posts)In most places, there is a limited (at best) number of reasons you can supply an affidavit to vote instead of attending, and in some places there are no reasons. If you can't drive or there is no bus route there, for example, there is generally not a provision for that. There are also very good reasons you might not want to have to share your vote in public, say you were voting differently from your boss, for example (in our 2008 caucus, it also pitted some neighbors against each other). The allotment of delegates is also kind of quirky, though that is a different issue.
I don't call it a total shutout when people fail to meet a deadline - that said, the NY State one is pretty far out. I think it should be closer. Things can happen to candidates or candidates can drop out, which might make someone choose a party or possibly even change parties. That said, I think a lot of the new, younger residents in Greenpoint and Williamsburg probably don't label themselves as Democrats most of the time, nor do I think they give much money to the party or other candidates (I don't know this, I think this) running as Democrats. When was the last primary election in New York anyway?
senz
(11,945 posts)for broad representation of party voters and can understand the point of view you express in your second paragraph, as well.
That said, I've been a Democrat since attaining voting age in the Sixties and have voted Democratic 99% of the time, but I joined not from blind loyalty to a label (and certainly not for any loyalty whatsoever to entrenched party regulars), but because the Democrats represented basic civic and moral values. Recently, the Party -- and the Party's favorite candidate -- have drifted far, far from those original civic and moral values. So, for many of us, the question arises: what is the Democratic Party? Is it a label? Or a set of basic values?
I'm not a New Yorker (though have relatives upstate) and so don't know Greenpoint from Williamsburg, but if these new, younger residents hold the original Democratic values sacred, whether they are party regulars or not, then there is something fundamentally wrong, both to the Party and to the (a million times more important) nation, to shut their voices out with party-protective rules.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)people want. No Oligarchy and fairness for the average citizen! The laws for this primary STINK!
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)He's making absurd promises there is zero chance he will fulfil. Telling people what they want to hear, even when it's not true, is not honest.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)That ought to be the default state of affairs, and a voter's missing some deadline or arcane piece of paper ought not to be an occasion for mirth.
I don't have a problem, though, with the rules for party primaries being a bit more strict.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)So the became Democrats. Unfortunately they brought their conservative amoralism with them.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)there are many many so called Democrats that proudly voted Bush in 2000 posting on this site.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)This is about choosing a Party's nominee.
senz
(11,945 posts)You should examine your premises more closely. Something needs cleaning up there.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Do you want to vote in the Green Party too ? Or the republican ? I mean it would be unfair of the Greens or the Republicans not let you have a say in their nominee too right ?
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...sense.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)acceptable to some when it helps their candidate. "Anything to win"
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)I like it when the vote is counted properly, too.
I'm funny like that.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)- Emma Goldman
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It's the RW mindset of believing the poor and working class deserve their lot in life.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)I just don't have sympathy for people who don't understand the rules, and want them changed to fit their whims. Just because you're an independent voter doesn't mean the world revolves around you. If you want to vote, you are more than welcome, if you play by the rules of the game. It's simple.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)It should be guiding principle.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #19)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)"GOTV!"
Hilarious.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Those people are in it for themselves and their tribe - nothing else. It would be a mistake to think of them as anything but selfish and myopic.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)today don't turn out for them in November.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)That's not the issue at all.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)And frankly, in my opinion, they have no place on DU. We have ALWAYS put voting rights high on the list of important issues here.
blm
(113,091 posts)I must have missed some threads.
Or is this about independent voters' confusion re New York's primary voting rules?
brooklynite
(94,728 posts)DFab420
(2,466 posts)blm
(113,091 posts)But, I do seem to miss threads when I go walk the dog.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)But here we are.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...it took a lurch to the right. No surprise that there would be a contingent on DU promoting RW thought.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)It's un-American.
Shameful.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)This is way past a difference in opinion. These trolls represent our true enemies.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Your comment is a bit unclear, can you clarify please?
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)If you wanted to vote in a presidential primary today, you had until March 25 (less than a month ago) to register as a party member: http://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingDeadlines.html
In general, if you want a say in how a private organization is run - and political parties are private organizations - you need to be a member of that organization in some form. Do you think tourists who are visiting New York should be able to vote in NY elections that happen to take place during someone's NY vacation?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Do the parties pay to hold them? Do they pay the election officials? Do they pay for the polling places? How is that organized?
I assumed that taxpayers pay for all of that.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I'm not here to make your arguments for you.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)If he wants to argue that all primary elections should be open because they are publicly funded then OK, but it's his job to present the facts about the costs and so on. Throwing out questions instead of doing research is a lazy way to argue and I'm not going to spend my time on digging up that information for him.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's a strong one. In California, I heard that the legislature set he date for our primary on June 7 because they only wanted to pay for one election and that was the date set for another election. I think that if the parties freeload from the taxpayers with regard to primaries than the primaries should be as inclusive as possible. The New York Democratic Primary is not inclusive. It is not encouraging people to re-register and identify as Democrats. To me, a lifelong and active Democrat, that is pretty dumb.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)for previously registered voters the date was oct 9th 2015....more than 6 months ago
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Did people in NY not know that there was going to be a presidential primary election this year, even though this happens every single election cycle and the law about switching party registration has been in place for decades and survived court challenges?
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)ny is one of only 11 states to hold closed primaries....to have the change date be 6 months before the election is regressive ...usually dems do not want to keep people from participating
but this year with the dnc not holding debates early (giving the repubs a 2 month head start) it is especially bad because the debates serve as a wake up call that election time is nearing
add in the electronic disenfranchisement ( democratic voters mysteriously dropping off the rolls)
<shrugs>
stalin would be proud
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I supplied a link to the official Board of Elections website, I don't intend to rewrite the entire content of the link in every DU post. I was primarily thinking of first-time voters who might want to participate int his election, if someone is a member of a different political party it's on them to know how soon they need to switch.
I don't see how that's regressive. I don't think registered Republicans should be able to jump into voting in the Democratic party primary because it's tactically convenient or vice versa. As for your claim that debates serve as a wake-up call that elections are nearing, I reject that completely. Election cycles are defined in the constitution for heaven's sake - they're so well known that I was aware of which were US Presidential election years when I was growing up...in Europe.
If anyone needs a wake-up call that there's a Presidential election happening on schedule every 4 years like there has been for over 2 centuries now then that's their problem. Frankly I prefer that people who are that poorly informed don't vote because they're fundamentally clueless.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I don't know what it is about some people on DU that they feel the need to falsely attribute words to other people so as to make it look like they're winning an argument. Anyone who wants to participate in an election can do so as long they update their registration in a timely fashion. The information about how to do so is easily available and presidential elections have been held in the US on a regular schedule for over 2 centuries now, so I have zero sympathy for anyone claiming they didn't know there was an election coming up this year.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's not good, and it's ongoing. NYers look like rubes being subjected to arcane voter restrictions.....
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.
"New York has always been lousy," says New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) legislative director Blair Horner. "It's getting worse."
It's especially acute in New York City. Mayor Bill de Blasio's landslide victory a year ago came without the participation of many voters of cycles past. While de Blasio racked up more votes than his predecessor did in any of his three elections, the turnout for mayoral contests has steadily declined since 2001, now hovering at just over 1.1 million voters.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/5432-forty-years-of-freefall-in-new-york-voter-turnout
Acting all happy about that makes you look sort of right wing.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Do tell me how I'm "acting happy" about it. I just hold a different opinion from you about whether it's regressive or not, I don't think it is. It's not mockery or celebration to observe that Presidential elections have been taking place in the US on a perfectly regular cycle for 240 years now, and that's why I don't buy your argument that the debates serve as some sort of wake up call.
I don't go in for gloating and while I support Hillary even a causal read of my DU comment history shows that I consistently encourage Bernie fans to vote for him and give it their best shot. I think misrepresenting people's comments make you look sort of like a liar.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Primaries are for parties, which are semi-private organizations. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that they are entitled to set their own rules for participation.
You're misrepresenting the issue because you think making it more dramatic will help your cause. It won't.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And people should be able to choose which primary they vote in.
Who pays for the primary elections and caucuses?
To the extent that their occurrence is funded or supported by tax money, their should be universal suffrage at least in so far as registration possible up to a reasonable time before the election -- or even on the day of the election if electronic.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)The primary election is open to everyone, and courts have consistently pointed this out to claims like yours. What you don't enjoy is a right to interfere with private organizations that don't want your interference, and have established rules to prevent it.
You can go start a party and the state will have to fund your primary too. Things are equal that way as well.
What you want is control over a group that has rules to prevent people like you from grabbing control. There's nothing in the Constitution about that, sorry (not sorry).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)My State has a closed Primary too but we have very high turnout. We regularly have more than twice the turnout of NY, while NY regularly ranks in the bottom 5 among the 50 States in voter turnout. This is some information from the NYC Campaign Finance Board:
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. NYC Votes advocated for election reforms in Albany this year, and we will be discussing other ways to boost civic participation at our conference this week.
http://www.nyccfb.info/media/blog/new-york-state-near-bottom-voter-turnout-rankings
Whatever they are doing they are suppressing voter participation in one of our largest and most Democratic States. The US had a big drop off in election participation in 2014 but fully half of that drop off came from just four States, NY, CA, OH and TX.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You just need to do so in a timely fashion. I think this is a good thing, otherwise you'd have Republicans hijacking the nominations of small parties like the Working Families Party that are trying to build some infrastructure as a progressive alternative. I'm a big fan of the WFP even though I'm more of a centrist myself because instead of sitting around bloviating about how unfair everything is they set up their own party to suit their own agenda and they contest and sometimes win elections under their own banner instead of complaining about how unfair everything is.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"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 not something to be proud of. My State has a closed Primary and more than double the pathetic turnout of New York State. Our Democratic Party grows and our voter numbers climb. NY voters look like a bunch of rubes from here.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You might want to consider the fact that NY also holds state primaries on a different day from Federal primaries as an added complicating factor that reduces turnout, not to mention the fact that NY state politics are notorious for corruption, which reduces people's incentives to participate. Note also that CA has the 10th lowest turnout even though we have fairly open primaries and it's pretty easy to vote here. We are having same-day registration come into effect in CA this year so it will beinteresting to see if this affects turnout or not.
You may well be correct, but asserting a straight causal relationship between registration time and turnout requires more evidence than you've given here, eg a statistically significant and persistent drop in turnout following the implementation of the registration-switching law. It's interesting material but too shallow to draw firm conclusions IMHO.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)NY has rotten voter turnout. I am not at all nor in the least saying that it is all about the registration deadline for Party changes, that's one element out of many arcane and undue restrictions NY puts on voting. You want to focus on that deadline because that's the bone you are gnawing on concerning today's election. I'm talking about NY's systemic and ongoing voter apathy problem.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Anyone can look at the thread and see that the context of our conversation is the registration deadlines to participate in primary elections. If you offer up a data point on low turnout then it's entirely reasonable to assume you're asserting some sort of correlation between the two.
If you want to talk about voter apathy in NY as a general problem then I'd be happy to have that discussion with you...in the General Discussion forum. In case you had forgotten, we're in GD , a forum whose entire purpose is to discuss issues specific to the primary elections. You can hardly complain that I interpreted your post above in line with the stated purpose of the forum.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)If you want to vote in a Democratic Party primary, join the Democratic Party. Register to vote as a Democrat.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to vote is that one of Hillary's first speeches was in opposition to laws in certain states that disenfranchise voters.
And here, New York, one of the states she claims as a home state, has one.
Hillary needs to urge her friends in New York to stop disenfranchising voters before she criticizes other states. But we all need to make sure, that as Bernie suggests, every American citizen is registered to vote at the age of 18 -- automatically and for all elections and for all time. Life-long.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)one could imagine a day not too far off in the future where people will register as fans of corporations and or banks and then, once every 8 years or so, be given the opportunity to "vote" in an online poll for their favorite. The CEO of the winner will be the one to wear the mantle of "president" for the great American democracy. I wonder, really, what percentage of the population might be perfectly happy with that? What's more likely is a severe economic crash in the next year or few years.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)for their right wing candidate to win!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Actually, we're both right. Anything and everything for the Queen.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Same day voter registration in every state deflects most of the push for open primaries, while simultaneously increasing the ranks of the party's voter base.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)That's incredibly hypocritical.
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)I'm ready to leave and warn every other site about this site's extreme support of corruption.
I won't buy into it under any party.
Supporting voter suppression is the most despicable thing I've ever read in Democrats, but then the Hillarians on this site have outdone themselves with despicable behavior in what they support.
I'm embarrassed to call my self a Dem after meeting these people.
I will proudly call myself an independent and get away from the NeoConservative Democratic party that these corrupt people have turned it into. I'm only waiting for Bernie, when he doesn't get the Nom, I go independent. But this site, I've about had it with now. I deeply regret donating.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)If the worst that happens is we deal with some internet bickering, it will be a small price to pay for saving the planet, right?
In the meantime, you can watch how information is shared and spread - how talking points are created, and debunked - how friends and enemies are made across the aisle and across the room.
You are learning a lot by being here. Not all of it will be wonderful. Much of it will be useful.
Just...breathe... We need you.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)TowneshipRebellion
(92 posts)the actions that need to be taken. The plutocracy must be broken one way or another.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This is for the next time you want to build a strawman and send him into battle.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)it is mob thinking. Not individual intellect. Add in the anonymity of the internet and walla! bullying and intellectual absence.
Mobs will act to the lowest moral core, not the highest. So people who like to think they are protectors of the people, will come here to attack people because their "group" approves that behavior.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's not about one candidate or one office, not about one cycle. It's systemic and it is chronic. It's also not about the closed/open primary because other States with closed primaries do not have this resulting apathy and low turnout.
Those who think it is amusing are not good Democrats and frankly the NY Democratic Party looks incapable of improving the franchise in NY.
randome
(34,845 posts)They castigate the concept of super-delegates but then portray themselves as somehow a superior form of super-delegate that can sweep in and crash any party they want.
Independents should start their own party but they won't because that entails hard work.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)If the majority of American voters are Independents which they are then the majority of State voters are Independents and for them to carry the burden of a private clubs vote is unfair
randome
(34,845 posts)Don't want to be part of the political process by starting or joining a party? Too bad. I don't want to pay Congress to sit on its ass and do nothing all year long, either.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Soul and justice be damned.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)choose who will be their front-runner. Democrats voting for Democrats.
If you want to remain an Independent and vote in the primaries, vote for the Independent Party - or a Party like it. What should we do next? Open the Democratic Party primary elections to Tea Partiers and Republicans next so they can pick and choose which candidate is weakest against their candidate in the General Election?
That's nutz.
The "big tent" elections happens in the General elections, not the primary elections.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)I always make sure my voter registration says "Democrat."
I'm funny that way.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,839 posts)And we have open caucuses. So if you're registering as a Democrat in a state where voters don't register by party affiliation, then indeed you are "funny that way." Otherwise maybe you need to dismount from your elevated steed.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)life, I lived in California, where I was always registered as a Democrat. Here, I'm a member of the DFL Party and am active in that party. I am a Democrat. I have always been a Democrat. I will be a Democrat until I die.
I'm quite familiar with Minnesota primary caucuses, as well. You don't have to be registered as a Democrat, but you do have to pledge to support the goals of the DFL party to participate in those caucuses. I suppose someone could lie about that, but I doubt that anyone does, really.
By the way, as you know, Bernie Sanders won here.
And now, we're changing over to primaries, starting with the 2020 election. We've all finally realized that caucuses exclude too many people from the process. Now, as always, in our primaries, you'l have to decide which party's ballot to vote on. It will still be an open process. I don't mind that, really, but New York is not Minnesota the people there, through their elected legislators and party leaders, have decide to have a close primary. Their choice, not mine.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Be honest about it. We don't have that in Mn.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)reminding people to take care of their business.
Why don't you work on the process instead of waiting until election day to complain and whine and wonder what went wrong. Filing a lawsuit (that has no chance of being heard before the polls close) is really a hail mary pass that is doomed to failure. Start with petitions right after this election and work to change the laws so that there is automatic registration and vote by mail and the next election (and they occur every year) you will have done something to help democracy. Don't wait until a presidential election to get involved. Politics begin at the local level with school boards and every other board in your community. That is where the real work begins.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)for wanting to vote. Refusing/forgetting to register as a Democrat so one CAN vote is something else - but you know that.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,839 posts)People should vote only if they are going to vote for your candidate. If you think they'll vote for someone else, then they should be prevented from voting.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... they're being mocked for not knowing how to.
Squinch
(51,007 posts)knowing that Independents can't vote in primaries. If they did not know that, they did not make their decision responsibly. We are not accountable for their irresponsibility. We do not have to change all the rules because they have been irresponsible.
They want to vote. They began the process of voting by registering. That is how it works. They will vote EXACTLY as they actively CHOSE to vote.
It's time you step out of your bubble and re-evaluate what you think is owed to you versus what is actually owed to you with respect to your political agency.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)The date to switch from independent to Dem was BEFORE the first scheduled Dem debate which was months after the first Republican debate.
Broward
(1,976 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Who became Democrats when the DLC took the party to the right.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)Tiresome.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)More and more people are turned off by the parties and are re-registering as Independents and that surely had an impact on the results from last night. As long as the system is held hostage by 2 similar parties, we'll end up with government by the corporations, for the corporations.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's not complicated. You just have to check a box.
We don't need Rush Limbaugh style "Operation Chaos" nonsense in our primaries.
Let the Republicans vote in their primaries and let us Democrats vote in ours.
If you choose not to register with either party, then you are choosing not to vote in either primary.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I've simply questioned why they were ignorant of rules which were clearly laid out...
...And I have yet to get a single coherent answer...
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)That is the sole current goal.
Prepare for more disenfranchisement efforts in the General.