NY's Restrictive Primary Is Going To Make It Look Less Close Than It Is

[thebeautifulstruggle]

I am one of the millions that won't be able to vote for my candidate of choice in the primary because I was registered as an Independent, and you had to switch party affiliation 8 months ago.

You'd think a state like NY would be less restrictive. 8 freaking months before than election?!?

http://gothamist.com/2016/04/12/ny_primary_battle_independent.php

As the surprisingly pivotal New York presidential primary draws closer, an upswell of voters have begun to organize against the State's closed primary system, which excludes 3.2 million independent voters, or about 27% of the voting public. For comparison, there are only 2.7 million registered Republicans state-wide.

A State bill introduced in late March would bust the closed primary wide open, permitting all registered New Yorkers to vote. Social media has been peppered with links to the legislation in recent days ("This is YUUUUGGGGEEE!!!&quot , and some have wondered if it could be passed in time for next Tuesday—a possibility that the bill's sponsor, Independent Assemblyman Fred Thiele, says is a very long shot.

"I don't have any illusions that we're going to get this done by next Tuesday," Thiele told us this afternoon. "There's obviously a lot of resistance in Albany, which is biased towards the two major parties. But I hope we can make 2016 the last closed primary in New York."

"It was amazing how many telephone calls and e-mails I got in the last few months complaining about not being able to participate," he added. "From unaffiliated voters, and also those who wanted to change their party to vote in this election. If you wanted to change your party you had to do that last October, when people weren't even thinking about it."

The closed primary, combined with New York's extremely early change-of-party deadline (October 9th, the earliest in the country), is likely to have an outsized impact on Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters—polar opposites in many ways, but similar in that they're poised to buck the establishment with their votes, and are more likely to be unaffiliated. Bernie's camp was so concerned about the votes it might lose in New York, that the campaign released a PSA ahead of the October deadline, urging the non-affiliated to register as Democrats. (Unregistered voters had until March 25th to file their registrations.)

[CalvinballPro]

1. California Democratic Party v Jones. Google it. Political parties get to make their own rules.

The state cannot impose regulations on how political parties conduct their primaries, because of freedom of association.

You are perfectly free to found your own political party and run it however you want. What you are not entitled to do is use the government to allow you to manipulate the outcome of a primary in a political party in which you don't participate on a regular basis.

Super-delegates and closed primaries are both just examples of "Ratf***ers Insurance."

You chose to be Independent. This is one of the consequences.

[revbones]

3. It's ignorance like that, that prevents party growth.

You can yell and scream about your precious team "D" and god forbid anyone from joining it all you want. Doesn't make it better for the Democratic party or democracy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Alas the democratic party primary in California IS OPEN

google is your friend.

And by the way, I cannot wait for them lawsuits against parties for holding private events on the public dime. You want your private party election... fine YOU PAY FOR IT.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Excellent post. nt

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

20. Nah, if we the taxpayer have to pay for these private groups elections...

Then we the taxpayer should have a voice in these private groups elections.

[PufPuf23]

21. The Democratic Party elite has established a system of rules to

perpetuate their control of the Party and negate the wants and votes and ability to vote of many new and long term Democratic Party members.

[revbones]

2. That's truly an unfortunate deadline.

Wonder what the justification was in having it that far out?

[CentralCoaster]

4. The DNC had made their choice. This was insurance. nt

[brooklynite]

8. I see...the DNC decided decades ago to make NYS's rules like this?

Just on the outside chance that a socialist-leaning college student decided to become a politician and run for President?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. The DNC has nada to do with this

it is the state party.

[CentralCoaster]

13. Correct, I was typing while walking, went for the quick reply.

I would think that the DNC wasn't upset by the move, but these things are state matters as you correctly suggest.

Hillary and the state party machine couldn't be closer and I wouldn't be surprised if it was Clinton's team's idea that led to this restrictive policy, meant to keep the process "pure party", or pure Hillary.

Now that I'm at my macbook I can type out that detail.

Now for some phonebaking to NY. We need this one, Nadin!

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. You do that

Me, more reading into the emerging American Kleptocracy

[brooklynite]

17. I would be very surprised; these rules have been in place since before Hillary was First Lady.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. I'm so sorry you won't get to vote for the candidate you want.

This election has really shown just how much voter suppression is in our election process and just how undemocratic our process is. Have you considered phone banking, canvassing for your candidate, or participating in a voter registration drive for new voters? That would help your candidate and would help you feel like you got to participate even though you don't get to vote.

[CorkySt.Clair]

6. I feel terribly for you.

These states should not be keeping registration deadlines secret.

[brooklynite]

7. No, it is NOT a "long shot"...it is a "no shot"

Last edited Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

The people complaining that they didn't understand the Party registration rules ALSO don't apparently understand how elected Government works in NYS. We have a State Assembly that is strongly Democratic and a State Senate that is STRONGLY REPUBLICAN. There is not desire (or need) on the part of the Republican Senate to give consideration to a radical change in New York's voting rules.

I registered to vote here in 1984, and the rules then were the same as they are today. You register for a Party if you want to vote in that Party's Primary. No early voting, no use of an absentee ballot unless you're actually absent. These rules were in place decades before I showed up. It's not a conspiracy to prevent Bernie (or Trump) voters from participating, it's just a very old school approach to elections.

Feel free to complain all you want on moral or political grounds; just don't expect a miraculous change in procedures 5 days before the election.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. As I understand, there's an Internet petition

Do you hear, sir? An Internet petition!

[thebeautifulstruggle]

18. im not expecting anything

i just think that a state like NY would be less restrictive

i mean, even Florida allows your to change it like a month before

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Bernie should have run as an independent

[thebeautifulstruggle]

19. would ensure an R victory

he IS what the Democratic Party should be about, and many want

part of why many independents are voting for him

[MadBadger]

15. I dont understand what is so bad about a party getting to pick its own nominee?