2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAll upcoming primaries MUST be open primaries!
SO MANY voters have had their party affiliation changed without their knowledge. Arizona's primary was terrible.
And now this:
[link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511578021|
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511578021
Hacking into a state's data base is not impossible.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)chosen Hillary and the remaining closed primaries will give here the nomination.
States and counties are responsible for recording voter registrations. They often get things wrong so you have to check before you vote. It isn't fraud and it isn't suppression when they screw up. Suppression is when you have voter ID laws and closings of voting places like in AZ.
Fraud is when voters vote more than once or vote in a state where they do not reside or use another person's ID or when results are reported incorrectly on purpose.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I live in KY and registration is done at the local level. You can not change anything online with your computer.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Either they're people who didn't change from I to D in time,or more likely,shit stirring to cause paranoia and hysteria when Sanders loses. It stinks of ratfucking.
Casandia
(663 posts)Here's hoping your registration is okay.
If something is online, it IS POSSIBLE to be hacked.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's new. That which is new is prone to launch issues.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)That would be a serious problem no matter what.
randome
(34,845 posts)No point to having candidates make their cases known and compete for votes. Actually, no point to political parties at all. We may as well have 300 million candidates for President and see who comes out on top.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)the Bernie supporters will start screaming that we need to close the primaries.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Who will win? Rod Blagojevich? Anthony Weiner? Certainly nobody an actual Democrat would select.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)primaries.
We are not changing the rules.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Have an open presidential primary and the leading vote getter becomes president. If the leading vote getter doesn't have a majority then there's a run off between the two leading candidates.
No more conventions and party debates.
That's democratic.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Ideally the members of each party should be allowed to pick their candidate for the general election using whatever criteria they want - most liberal/conservative, most likely to win the GE, most likely to motivate the base, most likely to attract independents and crossover voters, etc.
And ideally this choice should be made in primary elections rather than caucuses since the GE is an election not a giant caucus.
However, it is not an ideal world. My candidate does better in open primaries and caucuses than in closed primaries. Short term I support open primaries; long term closed ones. Consistency thy name is not pampango.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Too many on either side aren't. I am absolutely against caucuses, because they disenfranchise so many. There are some horrific numbers on caucus participation (6.5% in the repub one last time. Primaries, ca 50%) That's a whole heck of dienfranchisement right there.
As for primaries, I think my living in Norway has influenced me a lot. Here, the political parties choose their list candidates, and you have to be a registered member to participate in that process. The idea that unaffiliated people should have a say in who the party leader is or the ranking of the lists is just incomprehensible. Each party makes a list for each county, and the voter can amend the list in the voting booth, re-organizing the order, remove a candidate, or add a candidate from another list. But they have to be an active member of the party to participate in the list-making process or elect the party leader, who will be the party's candidate for prime minister. It makes sense ot me that only those who support the party gets to participate in the decision of who the party's nominee should be.
And their parties should decide between open or closed IMO. They are in the best position to judge what is best for the party locally.
Democratic elections need to strive for 100% accuracy, but voters should be aware that human error exists and diligently ensure that their own records are accurate.
While I am deeply concerned with gerrymandering and poll access I'm not convinced that designation changes are intentional. They should be investigated, certainly, but I'd like a lot more information before drawing conclusions.
Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)By their declaration.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)New York will get right on that. Sorry we didn't realize it bothered you. Let's do it all over and this time Bernie gets a 30 point head start and Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to wear a sackcloth dress on national TV.
What fantasy world do you live in? In mine the unicorns are purple!
randome
(34,845 posts)Sorry! Sorry! You said 'fantasy' and I...I...never mind.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Tarc
(10,478 posts)If you want to be in the party, be in the party. Otherwise move on.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)BOTH right-wing GOP and right-wing Democratic party hijinks and collusion, so, if you want to be lulled into a false illusion of choice and that's enough "democracy" for you then be in the party and fully support their efforts to steal elections and manufacture results. Otherwise, if you think Democratic elections in America should be one person, one vote, unhindered, don't "move on", fight back.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)Those days are long gone.
Second, the problems in Arizona are the fault of the Republicans who narrowed the polling places from around 300 to around 60, and by scores of people who showed up not knowing it was a closed primary.
Join or go somewhere else.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Ever heard of the "DLC", or "New Democrats"? Sure you have so obviously you also know your comment denying the existence of right-wing Democrats is complete rubbish. Secondly, you have no power, authority, or superiority to tell me where I can or cannot be.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)I realize that to a camp that is so far out there that everything looks right-wing, but your view is a distinct and ignorable minority.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)― Ludwig Wittgenstein
Tarc
(10,478 posts)HRC: 1,223
BS: 960
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)days. They are not long gone they are still with us. Arizona has had major election issues for years, this recent demonstration of the problems was the worst yet but Arizona has a long and varied voter suppression history. Long and varied. Among the worst in the country in fact.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)or whomever else they want to tarnish the party by tying them to us.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)... want anyone to be able to vote for him in the Democratic primaries.
Sorry, no.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Democrats should be the only ones choosing the democratic candidate.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)it.