NY State Dems don't want Independents to vote in party primary

[Eliot Rosewater]

https://nypost.com/2018/05/14/state-dems-dont-want-independents-to-vote-in-party-primary/

New York Democratic leaders say they want more people to vote — except they won’t allow anyone but registered Democrats to vote in party primaries.

The New York State Democratic Party plans on blocking a proposed resolution at its May 23-24 convention that would allow independent or “unaffiliated” voters to vote in this year’s Democratic primary for governor.

Now if only CA can get rid of their ridiculous open primaries which always ONLY help everybody but mainstream democrats.

[still_one]

1. The only way that will happen in California is through the initiative process, which

is what put it in the first place

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. True, it sounded good I guess, but it is NEVER going to help Democrats in a blue blue state.

[SoCalNative]

18. It hasn't hurt them thus far

the blue voters are in the most populated areas. Red incursion won't make a difference.

[Eliot Rosewater]

19. It can ONLY help everyone who is NOT mainstream Democrats, whether it actually one day

does do just that, is not known, what is known is in a blue blue state it cant and wont HELP mainstream Dems, they dont need the help.

It is very simple.

Now who it does help are NON mainstream people running with a D after their name trying to upset the status quo and normally I might be OK with that but not NOW for god's sake. Oh, and republicans, it helps republicans.

[Blue_true]

31. I think you may be thinking the Our Revolution types.

Sorry, we are stuck with those skunks. They realize they don't have the Jack to start their own party, so they intend to try to hijack ours.

BTW, damn good for NY democrats. Anyone that wants to vote in a democratic primary should register as a democrat by the deadline to register.

[wonkwest]

38. Kamala Harris easily won under this system

As did Jerry Brown. As will Gavin Newsom. There are a lot of Democrats in statewide offices who are pretty much as mainstream as one gets as a Democrat.

However, I'm not a fan of the system myself. Especially not in a potential blue wave election where we could potentially pick off seats in SoCal. A jungle primary makes it more difficult.

But so far, the party monopolizes most of statewide offices, and the legislature has a supermajority.

[RandySF]

53. It wasn't meant to

It was pushed through by a conservative group.

[comradebillyboy]

2. Good for the NY Democratic Party. They shouldn't let Independents

run on the Democratic Party ticket either.

[OnDoutside]

5. Amen to that.

[Demsrule86]

28. If you can't join the party because of who knows...than you can't vote in primaries.

[Demsrule86]

3. Good for New York.

[OnDoutside]

4. Makes sense.

[Stallion]

7. Democrats Voting for Democratic Nominee

how novel

[Trumpocalypse]

8. Why should non members of a party be allowed to

vote in that party's primary. Too much danger of Conservatives screwing around.

If someone wants to vote (or run) in a Democratic primary, they should be a member of the Democratic party.

[politicaljunkie41910]

17. EXACTLY!!!!!!! and yes I'm shouting. There is no good reason to let others manipulate our party's

primary results.

If they are serious about voting, they can change their party affiliation prior to the primary and then change it back in the General Election. The only way that's too much trouble is if your intentions were to create mischief in the first place.

In case anyone doesn't agree, all you need to do is look at the current California Primary Ballot. I mentioned this a couple of weeks before. With the Democratic Party having a lot of candidates on our Ballot, it's already goingfice to dilute the vote for important seats like Governor, Senators, and Representatives. Republicans are a smaller percent of the population, but if the Repubican's all put their vote behind ONE Candidate while we are spreading ours out over 5-10 candidates (and for some offices there are 10 or more Dems on the ballot) we could end up with a weak Dem on the ballot or possibly no Dem on the ballot at all, as, California law now sends the two top candidates regardless, even if they are from the same party.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I am a New York State Demoratic Party Committee Member (local level)

I am also the immediate past Chair of our Town's Democratic Committee (resigned that post after the 2017 November elections). In the latter position I was on our County Democratic Party Executive Committee. The NY State Democratic Party did not ask us for input on this matter - it is a very top down operation. The Executive Committee of the New York State Democratic Party has more members on it who are appointed by the Chair of the NY State Democratic Party than there are members who are elected by Democrats.

I am not saying that I know what position the NY State Democratic Party would take on this question if all of the County Democratic Party Committees in the state voted on the matter, just that there are a lot of behind closed doors in small rooms decisions made by our State Democratic Party with local input not encouraged.

[NCTraveler]

11. It's not a democracy.

Local leadership input should be requested but I see no reason for votes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. At no point during the 2016 election cycle did our County Democratic Party even engage in discussion

at any of our County Conventions held that year on who NY Democrats should support for President. In fact almost all decisions on matters above the County level are delegated upwards without open input from local Democrats Committee members.

[NCTraveler]

15. "id our County Democratic Party even engage in discussion"

Someone should have started the discussion. It's been a pretty hot topic.

"open input from local Democrats Committee members."

I don't even really care if it is an "open" process. Local party leaders should still have been sent an email questionnaire. Then simply ignore it and do what is right. Close em down. The Democratic Party should pick it's people going into the general.

[Eliot Rosewater]

16. Recommendation to all: (if a person doesn't need this information, they can ignore it)

Before worrying about "input" or how far to the left the party should go on a given issue, how about we first remove the ACTUAL Nazi Fascists who now occupy our WH, DOJ, DOD, EPA, House and Senate?

Then, once the country is saved from ACTUAL NAZI FASCISTS, we can debate how for the party should go on any issue.

I know, pretend your house is on fire, the flames are lapping up at you but someone wants you to stand in the kitchen and decide what color to paint it AFTER the fire is put out.

Would you do that? "You" being anyone who needs to read this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. In essence that is the same argument used to support martial law, & the one used to support torture

It is the classic "There is a dire emergency so we can not afford the luxury now of due process, full civil liberties etc."

You wrote: "once the country is saved from ACTUAL NAZI FASCISTS, we can debate how for the party should go on any issue"

Why did you pose this as either Saving the Nation from Nazis OR caring about Democratic procedures?

My post didn't discuss left right or center in regards to Democratic choices or priorities. I simply pointed out how the New York State Democratic Party "decides" matters above the County level. I didn't suggest fighting the Democratic Party in New York or anywhere else. If we as individuals have enough mental "bandwidth" to both organize to defeat Republicans AND enjoy cat cartoons on Sunday, to both register new voters and occasionally catch a film on Netflix, why can't we care about how the Democratic Party itself functions, especially those of us who are called on to do the day to day nuts and bolts work that allows a Democratic Party to exist?

[Eliot Rosewater]

21. Never mind, I see I wasted my time.

Your baseless accusations are disgusting, by the way

But you will get to leave them there, accusing me of supporting torture

WOW

martial law, sigh

Jesus FUCKING krist

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Jesus, I didn't accuse you of supporting torture etc. I was discussing, IMO, a logical falacy

Specifically, one that asserts that the most dire emergency one is facing requires suspending efforts to address all other important (but less important) concerns until the foremost emergency is dealt with.

I was talking about your logic in this instance, not your viewpoints. And you were the one who in my opinion injected Nazi's into this conversation from out of nowhere. Stopping, or not stopping Trump had nothing to do with what I wrote about.

[LisaM]

27. I think you deflected. Who cares if this was decided at a state level?

The topic here was open vs. closed primaries. Presumably, most registered Democrats (or people willing to declare themselves as Democrats) prefer a closed primary where the party can pick its own candidates.

Do you have an actual position on this issue?

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. The OP said "NY State Dems Don't Want Independents to vote in party primary

I suppose I could agree to literally having been tangential, but no my intent wasn't to deflect. This is a "peeve" of mine that exists regardless of the decision "New York State Democrats" make regarding open or closed primaries. I mean, I serve as a literal part of the New York State Democratic Party, beyond merely registering as a Democrat. My name will appear on the local ballot as a Democratic Committee member. My name, and those of all others who are elected Democratic Committee members from my Township, is on the same nominating petitions that local Democrats will be asked to sign indicating approval of our candidate for County Sheriff being on the ballot. We serve to represent the interests, inside the Democratic Party, of registered Democrats living inside our Town. All Democratic Committee members do a great deal of behind the scenes volunteer work for our Democratic Party and for the candidates that our Party nominates, not just the ones we personally are enthusiastic about.

So I reacted to a OP title such as this, not because of the specific issue of open or closed primaries, but because of the characterization of New York State Dems having a position on this issue. Technically of course it is true, but the people who I am elected to represent had no input into this decision either way. And the same is true at the local level to a large extent all across the state. I wrote an OP about this larger issue in July, again it had nothing to do with the stance Democrats take on an open primary:

Fighting for Democracy in the Democratic Party: An ACTIVE (New York State) Case Study
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029353828

It had nothing to do with Primaries or Primary Politics. It dealt with reforms being persued by one of our two County delegates to the State Democratic Party (there is not mention in it of Clinton or Sanders either). I was sharing what she was reporting.

In regards to your question you note that I made no claim that a more open process involving greater participation by elected Democratic Committees would reach a different conclusion - because I simply don't know. Nor did I criticize their stance on open primaries per se. I wasn' trying to convince anyone of a different position, just venting on how our State Democratic Party makes decisions, regardless of what they end up being.

But since you asked I at least want changes in our primary system - the point at which one has to declare themselves a Democrat in order to participate in our primary is way way before the primary date, much longer than the time window used by most Democratic Parties with closed primaries. In a political system in which for over a hundred years only a candidate of one of the two major political parties has ever won the presidency, there are practical problems with a practice that does not give the single largest voting Bloc in America, those who register as Independents, any say in who will become President before the actual choice has been boiled down to two individuals only. In New York State that problem is magnified by deadlines that force someone to register with a political party or not well before there is even any clarity on who will be competing in which party for the nomination.

[LisaM]

36. Look, I've been involved in local party politics too, and while I get what you're saying

I think at least in this case, it's perfectly valid for parties to be able to pick their own candidates.

It seems to me that the only mischief Independents are causing lately is all with the Democrats. They know that the Democratic party is - and is supposed to be - a big tent encompassing a wide range of ideas. These attacks and demands that Democrats shift to be more what (some) Independents want is wearing thin to me. The 2016 convention should have been a joyous affair and it ended up being divisive and contentious - all the more jarring because of the morbidity that was the Republican convention that year.

Independents have every right to band together and get another candidate on the ballot. I'm sure that we are slowly lurching towards a form of government where there will be larger third parties that form coalitions (and will get us out of this gridlock). But in the meantime, I think that people who want the resources provided by the party should be chosen by the people who pay dues or at least affiliate with that party.

I know that to some extent, decisions have to be made at a top level, because otherwise it won't happen at all. But getting back to the point at hand - is it your belief that most New York Democrats want open primaries and the state party is thwarting them? It sounds as if you have issues (and I'm not arguing that they aren't legitimate, far from it) with the state party as a whole, and the way the OP was framed just acted as a trigger.

Be glad you have primaries. My state has caucuses and they are hell on earth now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Yup, I do appreciate having a primary rather than a caucus

I'm sorry you are stuck with a caucus in your state, I hope they all get done away with soon.

I realize that many decisions have to be made at the State level, as usual the devil is in the details. I think an Executive Committee of the State Party where the Chair gets to choose a majority of it's members and actual Democratic voters only a minority, is a bit extreme. The OP I linked to above outlined a series of what I felt were very reasonable reforms in how the State Democratic Party could function. All but one got voted down - the one that passed required that meetings be called enough in advance for delegates to submit items for consideration at them. Previously a snap meeting could be called with no time for delegates to make travel plans and with too little notice for them to literally meet the mandated time requirements for submitting proposals to that meeting.

I'm honestly not in a position to know what most NY Democrats would decide. My guess is as a default stance, without an opportunity to hear good arguments both for and against a closed primary, that most would probably choose closed. I would welcome more discussion about that though. However I'm out of time for further discussion now, I have to go to work. Good luck with your local organizing.

[George II]

39. Who are the "upward" people there, how do they get their positions? In Connecticut....

....the State Central Committee is made up of two people from each Senate District - one woman and one man. They are elected by delegates to a nominating committee in each district. State Central members are there because of local Democratic Committee members.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. I'm not ignoring you, I have to run to work. I'll get back when I can n/t

[bettyellen]

30. NY's Dem primary was held long after a nominee was chosen by the rest of the nation- so theater?

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. That's a whole other can of worms

Actually for the last two contested cycles, 2008 and 2016, there was still an at least somewhat viable race on for the nomination by the time New York State voted, but only because both times the races were so hotly contested.

[bettyellen]

34. By March 16, HRC had cinched the nomination- so I can see why it was pointless.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I suggest that we respectfully agree to disagree on this one

One, she did not have a majority of delegates who were bound to her for the first ballot. Two, since Hillary represented New York State in Congress and lives in New York State, had she lost her own state to a previously little known Senator from Vermont, it would have sent out some shock waves. It might have effected the dynamics in subsequent primaries, it might have shaken the confidence of some of (not all of) the Super Delegates who were supporting her. In my opinion had Sanders won NY he would have had a dark horse chance of becoming the nominee. He didn't, and he didn't.

But we are off on a tangent to a tangent by now. I'm really not interested in discussing the 2016 race now.

[bettyellen]

56. LOL at the importance of superdelegates. Voters went for her. Voters.

[Demsrule86]

47. Not in 2016...08 maybe. It was closer.

[NCTraveler]

10. Closed Primaries. It is for the members of the party to decide. nt

[Me.]

12. For 'unaffiliated'

read Republican. Any others can go jump in a lake...

[crazycatlady]

25. Not all unaffiliated voters are Republican

It is the default if you fail to check a box on the voter registration form. My mom only recently (as in last week) changed to a Democrat. Prior to her party change, she was knocking on doors for a Democrat in a special election.

I registered to vote at 17. I was unaffiliated until I moved (2007). My first primary was Obama/Hillary.

[Demsrule86]

29. In Ohio, we have open primaries and they GOP has often caused trouble...against open primaries.

[crazycatlady]

40. Open primaries are an invitation for ratfucking IMO

HOwever, having a deadline to change your registration a month out from a primary is a reasonable compromise.

In the previous calendar year, candidates haven't emerged yet.

[Demsrule86]

43. I agree with that.

Although, you will still get crossing over...and ratfucking.

[crazycatlady]

45. I personally like NJ's rule

If you're unaffiliated you can change day of (but cease being unaffiliated). To switch from D to R (or vice versa) it is 45 days out.

My mom changed (NY) last week. She's disappointed she can't vote in Cuomo/Nixon.

[Demsrule86]

48. Yeah...I think Cuomo will win win though.

[Orsino]

14. As much as I value indies, I support this.

It's not unreasonable to bar voters not registered as Dems. It's sort of what a party is for.

[Fullduplexxx]

22. Good .. pick a side or go sit down

[Gothmog]

23. I am against open primaries

I agree with NY on this

[stonecutter357]

26. good

[EffieBlack]

37. Good.

If you want to vote in the Democratic primary, you should be a Democrat.

[SidDithers]

44. Independents shouldn't vote in Democratic primaries...

If you want a say in who the leader of the Democratic Party should be, then join the party.

Sid

[mcar]

52. It's that simple

[Cha]

46. Good ol New York State!

Mahalo, Eliot!

[Kirk Lover]

49. That's why Independents are Independents so this NYer is with this. nt

[mcar]

50. Good for NY

[BeyondGeography]

51. That's the way it has always been

Works fine. Encourages people to register as Dems, which is the main benefit, IMO.

[pnwmom]

54. Any independent can vote in the primary -- as long as they switch to being a Democrat.

The party is open to all, no matter what party they might have identified with in the past.

[pwb]

55. It's always been that way.

Not sure why this is important. Independants can't vote in republican primaries either and republicans don't want them to.