2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDagnabbit, please understand political parties.
Bernie is running as a Democrat within the Democratic Party.
That means, he plays by thems rules. They weren't made up to screw Bernie out of becoming president.
In fact they existed long before he thought of running for president on the Democratic ballot.
Second, political parties have rules as to who they nominate. Your constitutional right to vote for president will be in November.
Now, can people please get over themselves with this bull crap that everything is so unfair to the camplaigner, Bernie Sanders???
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)and then picking up the soccer ball and running with it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but it was very well written and it made a LOT of sense. The gist of it was that people can't expect to just walk in to a church and start demanding access and voting privileges with regard to church policy and business. It's just not done that way. There's a process, and it's not instant.
Perhaps the "instant gratification" that these so-called Independents crave is something that's LEARNED from the regular participation in "open online polls". Anyone can participate, no restrictions other than having a computer and access to the internet... and you get to see the results in real time.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)pick their internal nominee. I'm not surprised though that you use a game for an analogy. Voting rights are not a ball to be kicked up and down a field by two teams trying to score goals against each other.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)There's a process.
Crying about the rules with 2 minutes to go in the game is pointless.
That ship has already sailed.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Governor Cuomo Proposes Election Law Reforms in State of the State Opportunity Speech
Last week, Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a series of election law changes as part of his 2015 Opportunity Agenda . These proposals include: public financing of campaigns, restricting use of campaign contributions, lowering limits on campaign contributions and closing loopholes, improving New Yorks voting system, changing the ballot design to make it simpler, expanding the voter registration period to increase electoral participation, modernizing affidavit ballot processes to be more convenient to voters and allowing candidates and voters to change parties easier.
https://nyelectionsnews.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/governor-cuomo-proposes-election-law-reforms-in-state-of-the-state-opportunity-speech/
The ignorance of smug Hillary supporters never ceases to amaze.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)and then governor Cuomo needs to sign it.
Like I said, there's a process for this.
You guys don't seem to know how government functions.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)function, , but they are inherently undemocratic. There would be no point to them if they did not come between those who join them and direct democracy in the process of performing their critical functions.
Does anyone but the most cognitively quiescent here think our nation would do better if we all simply headed for the polls once every couple of years on Voting Day and the people who got the most votes got the office? My guess is that some of the people running in a system like that would make the GOP's current lineup of dysfunctional and sociopathic extremists look very good by comparison. Not that it would last long...
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)and can show damages is redress in our courts. The courts are one of several optional avenues in which to address legitimate grievances. That it is a class action type of lawsuit with 200 hundred plaintiffs is indicative that something is wrong with the voting system in NY.
They are in court, because by our laws, that ship has not sailed. It is in the hands of a judge now, so I'll wait for the system to handle it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... WITHOUT anyone casting the first vote. That's accurate, right? Nobody has a constitutional right to participate in party activities. That's pretty much decided by the party itself.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)That's why there are super delegates. Most of the rest is just theater.
KPN
(15,650 posts)i.e., control the outcome, but they also want everyone to come out for and support the result of their controlled outcome. That part might not work out so well. You are right, parties can do whatever the hell they want. But they really can't expect a higher level of loyalty from voters/party members than the loyalty they themselves extend toward those voters/members can they?
It's a two way street as in any relationship. The parties will reap what they sow.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Prez 45 years later.
The idiocy is one reason I like politics.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Whining about it on election day is pointless.
The ship has already sailed.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)And technically they don't even have to put their nomination process on the public ballot, they could have a private voting process that was still only open to those registered as Democrats.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)takes a few minutes . . . very little effort.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)are just a bunch of ne'erdowells.
for the impaired
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)A requirement that you must change your registration 8 months in advance in order to vote in a primary is ridiculous.
Actor
(626 posts)I have been preoccupied with real life, are Bernie voters being denied to vote in the Dem primary in NY because they are not registered DEM?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)for newly registered voters - only 3 1/2 weeks
Actor
(626 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Actor
(626 posts)about it long ago?
Why wasnt the Sanders campaign aware and doing something?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Focusing resources on NY eight months ago when Bernie was 30 points down in national polls wouldn't have yielded much.....
Actor
(626 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)....and now it is too late.
Actor
(626 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I'm confident that they have documentation.
I'm sure that most people just find out when they get to the polls.
Actor
(626 posts)I assume the allegation is somehow Hillary had the DNC in NY do this, if so how did they know which voters to do this to?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Actor
(626 posts)is possible.
Actor
(626 posts)that voter was supporting?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Looks like the deadline has pretty much been October of the year before the primary to change affiliation.
This isn't something that was changed to screw Bernie supporters.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Unless one is unable or unwilling to plan ahead.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)So any taxpayer should be able to check one out of the armory and drive it.
Rules are there for a reason. Closed primaries prevent the other party from choosing who they will run against. This is not a bad thing.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Actor
(626 posts)We need a parliamentary system.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)that is about as rare as voter fraud.....
It prevents something that rarely happens.
seekthetruth
(504 posts)Keep supporting your pro-war, pro-oil candidate, and keep thinking we're all going to fall in line like good little sheep. Me, and plenty of others, will sit out the GE. I'm tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Corporate Democrat or Republican, the same thing.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Very adult attitude.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)away, or anything else these GOP-cretins are fighting for. Just remember you successfully played the victim and decided not to vote.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I don't even know who you are, or anything about you. So, carry on.
seekthetruth
(504 posts).....return from another Mideast war in body bags with a warmongering Democrat.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)seekthetruth
(504 posts)The American War Party. It's you guys who don't make any sense. You think just because of the D beside Hillary's name makes us safe from war. Pay attention to history!!!!
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Hmm...
seekthetruth
(504 posts).....people are afraid of a word- socialism. Plus, I think many of those voters are willing to look past her faults just to have the first woman president. To us Sanders supporters, she's being supported at the detriment of our country.
Corporate666
(587 posts)They just don't want the massive unemployment, massive inflation, massive tax increases and totally stalled government that a Sanders presidency would bring?
Dehumanizing your opponents is the first step towards justifying any treatment of them. Sanders supporters need to realize that there are a lot of intelligent, hard working, honest and informed people who just do not see things the same way. Justifying every non-Sanders vote as being based on ignorance, media tricks, voter fraud and whatever else is not only sour grapes, but it paves the way to tyrannical behavior later on, in the belief that a select few know what is best for others more than they know what's best for themselves.
seekthetruth
(504 posts)Right now, we have rising wealth inequality, rising education costs, rising healthcare costs, rising global temperatures, and rising tensions in the Middle East, all the while our society's wealth is being accumulated by a select few. The arguments that you're using as far as "massive unemployment, massive inflation, massive tax increases and totally stalled government" sounds a lot like conservative talking points. Are you a conservative or progressive? Do you acknowledge climate change, and support an end to fracking or no? Do you support more war, or no? These are the types of questions people have to ask themselves, and if they can stand behind a candidate who supports the same type of behavior by our government that has placed us into this mess, then go ahead. Just don't be upset or critical when a large percentage of us say absolutely "NO!".
I understand people have their opinions, of course! They're entitled to their voice, just as much as I am. But when I see on the mainstream media the amount of bias against a particular candidate, it's nauseating. It's almost like we're being told that the establishment knows what is best for us, and we better get in line. Well, what you're seeing play out these days is a movement that is tired of the same political game.
Tyrannical behavior later on? I think it's tyrannical behavior in the form of an oligarchy when a select few hoard most of the privilege and wealth in a society. We're already there. If you don't think so, then I suggest you join the Republican party.
In my home state of Washington, we had our legislative district caucuses this past weekend and I met many very polite and engaged Clinton supporters. The overwhelming theme of their feedback for supporting Clinton was simply they don't believe Congress will play nice with Sanders. Well, do we think that Congress is at a point where they'll play nice with Clinton as well? We've seen how she has flipped on many issues (universal healthcare, the minimum wage), while the other candidate (Sanders) has stayed steady in his beliefs.
I just don't trust Clinton. And that's how many others like me feel. Don't blame us when we don't show up to the polls to decide between a Republican and a Republican-lite.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)President Trump or Cruz.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)it's the rules it's the rules...the rules need to be changed and they will be. People are fed up. Those that were wanting to vote for Bernie and had not registered by that timeline did not know enough about him UNTIL AFTER THAT CRAP RULE WAS ENFORCED...okay ....I'm getting tired of the blanket statement it's the rules. The rules are not fair the closing of the registration was and is disenfranchisement! That is Bull Crap!
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)and throw a tantrum but, after all that, you've still got to do things by the rules. It's what adults do.
Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #7)
DrDan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)so much in 2000, 2004, 2008 etc.
When Bernie first signed up to run as a DEM there may have been a little time then to tweak some changes, but he and his campaign knew what they were getting into. To create this false narrative amongst his constituency is despicable and harmful.
But for all the whining and complaining, it does no good to claim it's all so unfair now, simply because your candidate is losing.
There are somethings I think are appropriate about a Private Organization establishing their own rules. The rules can and likely should be changed. Since it's not an election, it won't take a Constitutional Amendment to do so.
Why not take all of your efforts into organizing rule changes before the next Primaries, since you missed doing it on every previous primary Bernie didn't run and you didn't care back then?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)caucuses or primaries, that is fine.
If they use tax payers' money, it becomes
a totally different ball game. Okay?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)agree with you 100%. But the day of the Primary is not the time to try and do it.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)R B Garr
(16,975 posts)when he pretends everyone is out to get him.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Debbie
Wasserman
Schultz
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Stealing data while playing victim.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cheating becomes necessary
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Obviously.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Its why Republicans strip away voting rights wherever possible.
The world they see doesn't match the world they believe in. They are convinced they are right and thus are justified, so they cheat and obsess on semantics, etc...
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)actually the perpetrator, as in stealing data from Clinton and then saying you are a victim when you are confronted about it and simply asked to explain your inappropriate actions. That is also called cheating.
So saying you are a victim of the Democratic party while simultaneously using it to your advantage is a form of dissonance. etc...
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Ever notice Republicans never discuss issues? Not a coincidence...
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)and then asking for money yourself when you mention them. It's what phony "issues" look like.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Doesn't it?
Codeine
(25,586 posts)grease the skids for someone who spent decades running them down.
awake
(3,226 posts)Who has her finger on the scale. With all of the corporate money being slipped to Hillary's campaign though the DNC and her supper pacs Hillary is still in atight race, in a fair fight Hillary would be out of money by now. Berrnie has brought over 2,000,000 new voters to the table which the party will need this fall and for years to come. The Clintons are the 90s remix not the future of our great party, get use to it no one is going away.
oasis
(49,407 posts)a chance to vote. He has his excuse ready.
Independents and mischievous Republicans don't get to choose the Democratic Party's nominee. Well, can you imagine that.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I'm fairly sure after the primary Sanders will form a progressive party and take his supporters with him, leaving the Democratic Party at about 15% of registered voters. Let us know how that works out for you.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)OK? I might join it if it's reasonably well organized. You can just post the announcement here and I'll find it.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)As I am with how these rules affect voters.
I think the rules are screwed up, no matter which candidate they hurt or help.
imari362
(311 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)and insist that the rules have to be changed right now because you want them changed, and if they aren't changed you'll hold your breath.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)This election is bringing things up that don't normally come up. That is why it's being talked about now.
But from all the snide comments about voter ignorance and responsibility, I think some Hillary supporters are going over the line in their glee.
Even if rules aren't changed, it should be the state's responsibility, and the parties, to make sure all citizens of a state are informed of voting rules for all parties in the state. But this is not being done.
My solution would be that all states automatically register all eligible voters when they turn voting age, and new people signing up for driver's license as they've moved in from other states. And when they register them, they should give/send everyone a booklet of rules of all the voting rules of that state. And whenever voting rules are changed, new booklets should be mailed to all registered voters.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)of fact. The voters who didn't register, or who registered as Independents and are now insisting on being allowed to vote in the primary are being ignorant and irresponsible.
And you are simply dead wrong when you say that the citizens of New York are not informed of voting rules. When I, and everyone else, registered to vote in New York, we were told that if we registered as Independents we would not be able to vote in the primaries. All of Sanders's New York Independents HAVE been informed of this fact. It is the responsibility of the VOTER to fucking pay attention.
This election is NOT bringing up things that don't normally come up. That is crap. In New York, Independents have NEVER been allowed to vote in primaries.
So you are all tossing out mountains of bullshit about "disenfranchisement!" and "unfair!" and "evil!" and bringing asinine lawsuits, beginning on the eve of the primary, about rules that have ALWAYS been in effect, which have never been a problem before, and which ALL New York voters have been informed about.
Yes. That is the very definition of a tantrum.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You haven't been paying attention. This one that I replied to wasn't, but many of them have been pretty nasty.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Apparently a lot of people didn't know about it, or forgot. That can happen when you rarely have to consider changing parties. That is why this election is unique. They were ignorant of that waiting period, but it's the waiting period that is the problem, not the voter's ignorance.
And now you are sounding snide. Yeah, they were ignorant. It was their responsibility to stay on top of all the rules.
Well, I disagree on that. I think all the registered voters in any state should have a book of rules to refer to so they don't have to remember ten or more years from the date they registered, that changing parties just might throw a monkey wrench in their plans.
The state and the parties are also responsible of keeping residents informed. I know you don't believe that, but when you get a new driver's license you have to read the book and pass a test. And the books are free at the DMV every time you have to renew your license. the same should be true for voters. If you register, or if you change your registration, you should be offered or mailed a booklet on voter rules for that state.
Voter apathy is one of the biggest problems dems have in this country, and you are willing to sit back and let that continue. I'm not.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)personal voting consultant who calls them the night before any special deadlines. No one should have to take any responsibility for their own right to vote.
And yes. That was snide. Because this is asinine. I can't even believe this nonsense. Grow up.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I never said they needed to be sent info before every vote. Just every time the rules are changed, or when they are a new voter in that state.
You are the ones who are clutching your pearls in this campaign, and you are happy to snark at everyone who might have a real concern with the problems with deliberate voter disenfranchisement, voter's education, and voting apathy in this country.
I wonder how you would be sounding if it was Hillary who was being hurt by these rules? Would the fact that she was a democrat and that it might mean a republican win mean anything to you at all?
Please don't try to lie to me or yourself.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This is from last summer, the NYC Campaign Finance Board:
New York State Near Bottom in Voter Turnout Rankings
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
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
Note it calls for reform of their outdated and restrictive election laws. Which you are celebrating. Also note that not all closed Primary States have these issues NY has. NY has outdated and restrictive election laws. And embarrassingly low turnout.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Make up your mind.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Sparkly
(24,149 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)problem that means they cannot vote in the GE either.
shameful that you think this is ok.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)because it doesn't make a lot of sense. A link to NY voting law perhaps?
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)Independent voters can and do vote in the general election. Most voters don't vote in the primaries, in fact.
What on earth made you think that?
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I make a wildly delicious bean dip. Would that be OK?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I'll bring that, then.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)he has simply decided to run as a democrat for the exposure. And Bernie himself knew it was wrong. I have no respect for him.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)if he is not the nominee for the Democratic party.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)The ones who have been endlessly debating which candidate will appeal to independents in every election up to this one, when we already know quite clearly who does (and who definitely does not)?
Those parties?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)DU has nothing to do with it.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)People are still posting their feelings on the subjects in 2016.
That's how these things work.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Bernie is simply objecting, futilely, it appears, to the election rules. That's just sour grapes.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I do not think it means what you think it means.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)They simply did not register to vote as Democrats.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)You should not have to be a member of any party to have your voice (vote) heard.
Entrenched political parties are a symptom and tools of Oligarchical control over the governing systems of this country.
Fuck them.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I love how DU gets more Republican every day.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)All taxpayers should have an equal right to vote as they wish.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)to register as Independents in New York, they are informed that they will not be able to vote in the NY primary.
If they register to vote as Independents, they CHOOSE to do so knowing this fact.
Everyone in New York is voting EXACTLY as they, themselves, freely CHOSE to vote.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)It means you're a member of the Independent party. You can vote for the Independent party's candidate, just like the Democrats can vote for the Democratic party's candidates. That the members of the Independent party chose not to field any candidates is not a problem caused by the Democratic party.
Those who were not registered with any party had a March 25 deadline to register with their chosen party if the wanted to vote for one of the candidates of their chosen party.
In other words, all taxpayers could vote in the New York primary in their party's primary.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Any taxpayer can choose to register as a Dem Or Repug.
Perhaps we should all be able to vote in both the Dem AND Repug primary?
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)And how the right to vote applies to the general election, while we are at it.
Too much at once? Probably.
jfern
(5,204 posts)the election, and NY is by far the strictest, you have to change your registration over 6 months before.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)NY has the longest time needed of any state to switch, over 6 months (October 9th) and BEFORE the first Dem debate.
Both O'Malley and Sanders called for more debates in the summer of 2015, finally in October Clinton said 'she would not object.'
Squinch
(51,004 posts)about it.
Typical Sanders hair on fire disorganized entitled nonsense.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)once the October 9th date passed, and may I remind you that was before the first Democratic debate which was almost two months after the first Republican, there was not reason to raise the issue.
But there is a reason to raise it now as so many people did not realize it then.
Once again the Dem party is telling independents 'We do not need you Now' and did nothing to bring you into the party back in the summer and fall, but we might call upon you once We have selected a candidate.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)as Independents, fully aware of the fact that they cannot vote in primaries. Most of them are not so moronic as to think this status of not voting in the primary, which has ALWAYS been in effect, and which they knowingly CHOSE for themselves, is some kind of personal insult to them.
Some few idiots do think EVERYTHING is all about them. They are probably totally insulted by this.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)after people had a chance to change from independent to Dem!
Again, Independents you are not needed, please just go away, stay home!
Squinch
(51,004 posts)And we respect their intelligence and the fact that NY Independents chose to be Independents knowing what that meant.
Some of Bernie's NY Independents don't seem to be quite as ... um... aware. I found this, though, which might be helpful for them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=107943
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)disenfranchise independents, people we should be welcoming to the Democratic party!
"We Hillary people like them just fine ..."
You would never know that by the posts on DU.
And on one hand you like them just fine and on the other you say they are not "quite as ... um ... aware.
As said before independents are cast off to the side until the party calls them in November, we do not need you now, but stand by!
Clinton never advocated for more debates in the summer before the deadline in NY, unlike O'Malley and Sanders.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)definition of that word.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)of any state, not something I can applaud.
These are independent voters that you continuously imply are not needed.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)cares whether you can applaud the way we do things. It has never been a problem, regardless of your opinion.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)I reached one guy last night who was a Hillary supporter, but could not vote because he was in California. Another guy on Friday learned he had to leave for business on Monday and was a Sanders supporter. Neither person was voting today.
As for the independents and missing the early October deadline, the Dems do not need them, that has been made abundantly clear from Hillary supporters.
Hillary approves of the October deadline, before the first debate, and I disagree.
I think independent voters deserve our attention.
We'll agree to disagree, have a good night.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)lucid decisions, and who aren't smart enough or responsible enough to navigate a very simple system.
Most Independents in New York are not irresponsible children. Most of them made their decision carefully and for good reason. I think you should stop disrespecting them by suggesting that they are irresponsible children.
I don't know why you insist on insulting New York Independents.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)their affiliation over 6 months ahead of the primary, and I will state once again BEFORE the first Democratic debate and the longest time of any state, does nothing to try and bring people into the party.
Many posts on DU have made it clear that independent voters are not needed, I never believed that we should dismiss them, please do not twist my words.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)and when you cannot back up your preposterous posts you retreat, what a joke!
Squinch
(51,004 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)And why have there been no complaints about it till now?
basselope
(2,565 posts)The fact that you are FORCED to join a religion to have a chance is a large part of the problem.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)cater to them.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)brewens
(13,620 posts)what they are preventing now. Or more accurately are enabling now. More of the same.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)How would you feel if, I as a volunteer for your local Board of Elections, had removed you from the voting roles and expelled you from the party by marking you as "inactive" which automatically had changed your registration to "Independent" without you being informed or warned that was about to happen or provided a recourse...meaning you didn't get a primary vote (and that's not an error, it's how the new rule was written and you legitimately didn't get a primary vote)...all because you hadn't voted in your local elections last year or the local-election primaries 4 months earlier?
This isn't a hypothetical. This is what actually happened in NY under the new party rules meant to clean-up the voter rolls. If you missed two elections or primaries in a row in the past 4 years...any two elections or primaries, no matter what the level of race...you got struck as "inactive" and reregistered as an independent without your knowledge or consent.