2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYS Election Laws have been in place for decades and no one complained before
Interesting that it has suddenly become an issue. It wasn't an issue in 2008 or 2004 or 2000 or 1992.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)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.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)IamMab
(1,359 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)If you ever criticize Voter ID laws, maybe a Republican will mock you as showing "poutrage."
IamMab
(1,359 posts)and none other. The voting system in NY hasn't changed in decades, and is the same system that every other Democratic candidate for President has run in during the modern era. But it's all supposed to be flipped upside down because Bernie's voters couldn't be bothered to learn the rules?
No sale.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I hadn't heard of NY state's 6 month freeze on party-switching until shortly before the NY primary.
Any affected voter who "learned the rules" less than 6 month's before the primary was disenfranchised.
None of the other 49 states have 6 month freezes on party-switching.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)that disenfranchisement involves losing the right to vote at all. Not being allowed to vote in a closed party primary is NOT disenfranchisement. The Democratic Party of NY wants its own registered members to help pick the party's nominee for the general election, and that's entirely right and legal.
Bernie's independents were perfectly free to vote for any candidate in any open primary that was available in New York. The Working Families Party also exists in NY, maybe Sanders' supporters should have voted in that primary?
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has consistently ruled that political parties are semi-private organizations covered under "freedom of association" to determine their own processes and rules, as they see fit. California Democratic Party v Jones, surely as a "voting rights advocate since 2000" you've heard of this case, yes? California tried to mandate that all political primaries be open, and the state Democratic Party sued, and won. SCOTUS ruled that forcing open primaries on a party could leave them vulnerable to "outside interference" which might end up moving the party in a direction that runs counter to the direction desired by its actual members.
You clearly don't like that voters had to know the rules and take action months ago, even though that's on them and no one else. That is, however, insufficient grounds to be tossing around the word "disenfranchisement," especially as out-of-context as you are using it.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Otherwise, there could be poll taxes for primaries.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)the activities of a political party. And cost-free party registration is NOT a poll tax. That's a desperate argument.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...just that the ban on poll taxes shows that primaries can't be conducted in a way which violate rights.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)Since we've already established that not getting to vote in a closed primary because you didn't register properly isn't disenfranchisement, then where is it?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...who learned about a candidate they liked within 6 month of a primary and wanted to join that candidate's party to vote for him or her from doing so. Those people are disenfranchised.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)You're not offering any evidence of disenfranchisement. All you're doing is repeating the word as if that will make it true.
If the rules of the Democratic Party don't suit you, then found a party and run it however you want. Member of the Working Families Party in NY are registered to that party, and could also not vote in the Democratic primary. Those are voters who actively chose to not be Democrats. Is it your assertion that members of a different political party should be allowed to influence the nominating contest of another party? That's outrageous!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Regardless, it is likely that, in fact, if no one complained it was due to the fact that NY primary has never really been critical to the primary race.
It draws attention to a lot of problems with our primary system as a whole and in NY in particular.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)When the primary essentially choose the new Mayor. New York was a critical presidential primary in both 1992 and 2008. Yet no one complained in any of those years.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Which are even more undemocratic.
All states should have primaries.
msongs
(67,441 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)There is a reason that Chuck Schumer penned this OP-Ed in 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/opinion/charles-schumer-adopt-the-open-primary.html?_r=0
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)However, he is only a Senator from NY and can't do anything about internal NY politics, other than express his opinion, which he did.
But it is untrue to say it has NEVER been an issue before. It has been an issue for years.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)which didn't even discuss NY election law, when has this been an issue?
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Schumer doesn't mention NY.
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)He mentions Virginia, California, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Mississippi; but never New York.
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)He never mentions New York.
So either you need to re-read this or you're just lying to cover up that you were wrong.
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)you know full well he never mentions New York. So I guess you are lying to cover up that you were wrong.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Try the ending.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism. It would remove the incentive that pushes our politicians to kowtow to the factions of their party that are most driven by fear and anger. For those of us who are in despair over partisanship and polarization in Congress, reform of the primary system is a start.
Please point out where he mentions New York. And at this point I think we all know who the little one is.
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)doesn't make it true.
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)Read the article.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Read the article several times, even posted an excerpt from it, and at no time does Schumer mention NYS election law. And the fact that you have failed to post any part of the article where he does so is an admission that he doesn't.
So there are only two conclusions, you are either a bold faced liar who refuses to admit that you are wrong or you are totally deluded and only imaging that he did in your imagination. Which is it?
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)will not make it true.
basselope
(2,565 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)I just know what the article says.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Schumer never mentions NYS election law specifically. If you really think that he does, you need seek mental health treatment because you are obviously delusional.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Try again. You can do it.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)and then post the passage where Schumer specifically mentions NYS election law.
If you don't then you are admitting that you're a liar or that you are mentally unstable.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You can do it.
Response to basselope (Reply #144)
Post removed
basselope
(2,565 posts)You can do it.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)But you can't do that because no quote exists.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You can do it.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)But you can't. So will you admit that you're a liar.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You can do it.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Too bad none exists.
basselope
(2,565 posts)End Partisan Primaries, Save America
Charles Schumer: Adopt the Open Primary
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)where Schumer specifically cites NYS election law.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You can do it. Link is above.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You could of course, post the relevant except... or simply continue your allegation. The one, in which we allow footnotes and support our premise is called a 'discussion', the latter being a mere bumper-sticker (at best).
basselope
(2,565 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)discussion. You'll just keep hearing the same stuck record. Over and over and over...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)probably appropriate. It's great that millenials are willing to fight to fix a broken system.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)How is it suppression?
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Angry about voter suppression. The same people acting like it is not big deal now will be colicky when Republicans do it in November.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)You might just have some issues yourself.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)who voted for another candidate.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I'm happy to aid in having others see you for what you are.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And the only thing I am is a NYC voters who doesn't remember anyone complaining about the election laws, until now.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)question everything
(47,535 posts)"Give us a break."
The Sandersitas don't like super delegates until.... they get their support.
What hypocrisy.
apnu
(8,758 posts)And crying about it now is bitter tears.
Fist off, screw Trump, he can cry all he wants, I love his bitter tears.
As for Sanders, this is the game he signed up for. He threw his hat in to this ring, in this party, with these rules. He didn't say boo about the Supers until it became clear he wasn't attracting their attention. By running as a Democrat he's accepting the Democrats rules, stupid as they may be. We can't change the rules in the middle of the game because someone's losing. Which is what Rudy Giuliani wants (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027767853), but we are better than that ghoul.
Bernie, his people and his supporters, should have been petitioning the party to change the rules long before now. They look like petulant children not getting their way. That's no way to conduct themselves.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/letters-ny-election-officials-treating-affidavit-ballots-voter-registration-applications
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)So in effect you proved that my premise is not false. Thanks.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)there would be dozens of articles dating back decades instead of two obscure examples.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)why bother with you then?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And if you don't want to bother with someone that disagrees with you, why did you reply?
Stallion
(6,476 posts)nm
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Repeteadly.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Do you have links?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Covering a hearing from a phone covering a hearing. But it has. A poster above showed you two.
Most of this, not limited to NY incidentally, is pretty much arcana for most folks. What I will say though is sure to anger you. The US does not even start to meet the requirements of open and fair elections we impose around the world
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And the poster above showed two links that were not court cases. So they don't prove that it has been argued in court repeatedly.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But here is one of the most recent cases for California... Oh I forgot non case
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401
And here Smith v Allwright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright
A Texas case by the way
I hope you remember this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Then there is this
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/03/nation/la-na-congress-fundraising-leaders-20140404
And a nice law school summary for you
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~norrande/pol231/judicial-06-bw.pdf
The fact that you do not know this is not my fault.
Suffice it to say, this is not a cold subject in the law. I expect more lawsuits. This if far from settled.
Of course we have one of the least transparent electoral systems in the world, but that is another discussion. And I will be in court today by the way, Sorry if I cannot please your requests from a phone. I got more important things to do, but here is a hint... if you are actually interested, which I doubt, you can use the google next time m'kay. Willful ignorance is yours.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)not Texas or California. And being in court yesterday doesn't disprove my point that this was never an issue in NY until this year. Actually it proves my point, so thank you.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Took me two seconds
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/supreme-court-showdown/48962/
If you were actually interested, you could use the google.
You think that a CA case that goes to the Supreme Court has no influence in NY State? Let's talk Citizens United, shall we... it started just up the road, in Orange County. It was started by my good friends at the Lincoln Club You want to anything about one of the most conservative organizations in CA and their outsize influence in the rest of the country?
Ignorance is willful.
And with that, have a good day. I really need to get going, Judges do not like it when one is late.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)that doesn't even discuss election laws regarding closed primaries. So you've again failed to disprove my initial post that the elections laws in NY regarding the closed primary was never a major issue before.
But you are right Ignorance is willful.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Just that it was never a major issue in NY until this year.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If there is a case, this is not a criminal case?
I mean for anything from small claims all the way to civil rights lawsuits?
The fact that it has not been a problem (in your mind) minor cases happen all the time and some minor become landmark is becuase at least a few folks, or unscrupulous lawyers, feel there is a problem that needs to be sued over.
Why I also gave you cases from other places, Sometimes, a case in CA will affect the rest of the nation in clear and nasty ways (citizens united)
We usually cover some criminal law with civil rights implications, Why I have been spending a lot of quality time at court in the recent past. I am not a lawyer, but understand that most US Law, even election law is not settled in any way, shape or form. It is also arcane as hell. And most citizens, like you, are not aware of what is roiling in the legal system.
From statements from Mayor DeBlassio and others I predict this will end in the courts. If this ends going all the way to the USSC, given how slow the system moves, it will have zero effect (unless the legislature acts) before three more Presidential cycles, yup that be 12 years.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)And remember we are talking about NY here, not California or any other state.
As I originally said, the elections laws in NY have been in place for decades and they were never a major issue in the past.
Unless you can show that a record of court cases going back decades with major news coverage, then you are just blowing smoke and spinning like a FAUX News anchor.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #28)
nadinbrzezinski This message was self-deleted by its author.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)But, hey, it wasn't an issue in 1832 ... Or in 1903 ...
Yeah ... I see what you mean ... Just because it didn't happened in those other years is PROOF POSITIVE that there is no real problem and it would NEVER EVER happen ...
And who would steal elections, anyways? ...
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)I know you have no logical or factual argument to make. Thanks.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Sometimes the shoe fits ...
Wear it ...
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)as well as smelling of desperation.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)Up until now there were more... shall we say, more unobtrusive ways to stop the relatively unknown, annoying upstarts. Usually people could be made to be satisfied to be voting for the lesser of the evils they were being offered.
Well, this time around, the people have someone honest they can get behind. Someone who is not evil. That is what is giving the Establishment (read, our owners) fits.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)for a few months 3 years ago. While I can't say that errors were never made, most people who came in to complain that their registration was changed actually checked the wrong box when they filled out the form. In some cases people checked two boxes (mostly Republicans who also checked Conservative).
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)on this thread) of bringing actual FACTS into the discussion. Ruining a feel-good session of poutrage for Bernie having lost.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)get to 4??
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)was "changed illegally", i.e. NOT for technical reasons like a) the voter wasn't registered as a Democrat b) wasn't trying to change parties outside the deadline, c) hadn't let their voter registration go stale, d) other legitimate clerical error. Not finding them.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Or doesn't that count.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)20% Turnout in New York Primaries
Bill de Blasio took first place in the Democratic mayoral primary on Tuesday with the votes from only about 3 percent of all New Yorkers. If that percentage seems small, consider that the number and share of votes received by Joseph J. Lhota, the Republican nominee, was only about one-tenth that amount.
A total of 700,000 voters went to the polls, according to incomplete returns, or about 20 percent of enrolled Democrats and Republicans. That is a middling turnout, by historical standards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/nyregion/20-turnout-in-new-york-primaries.html
8.5 million NYC residents. 700,000 total votes cast.....
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)But that is not the issue. The issue is why NYS election laws haven't been a major issue before.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for years and years now. You are so uninformed and apathetic about it I have to assume you are a NYer. DU is full of NYers who cant accept this. I have been told that 'Brooklyn knows how to vote!' when 12% of eligible Brooklyn Democrats manage to vote, I have been told NY has the country's highest turnout when in reality it is always in the bottom five with Red States for company.
2013, NY Post:
Election Day turnout lowest in over 50 years
"The voter turnout on Election Day was a measly 24 percent, the lowest in more than half a century.
With paper ballots still to be counted, the Board of Elections reported 1,026,169 ballots cast in a city with 4.3 million registered voters.
That compares with a turnout of 93 percent in 1953."
http://nypost.com/2013/11/06/election-day-turnout-lowest-in-over-50-years/
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)doesn't directly dispute my original point.
And for someone so easily insulted, you should stay away from personal attacks. Seems rather hypocritical.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)State primaries are run by the political parties. It wasn't an issue before because there's never been a Bernie before. They did everything they could in this closed primary to make sure Bernie didn't win and they succeeded.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)IamMab
(1,359 posts)More fraud from the Sanders camp.
KPN
(15,650 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)back in the '80s.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)JustinL
(722 posts)As far as I know, 1972 was New York's very first presidential primary. In Rosario v Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973), the Court upheld the deadline 5-4. This was at a time when there were only 3 liberals on the Court; all 3 of them joined Justice Powell's dissent.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)it really hasn't been an issue. And the case has to do with the registration period not with NY being a closed primary.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Over the last 60 years NY has basically stopped voting.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)But you're haven't proves that it is due to election laws alone. There are many contributing factors.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The bit you should focus on- "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."
"Reforming out outdated and restrictive election laws."
This is an ongoing issue in the State of NY among election reform advocates and it is starting to really take hold because turnout is getting so low that it is difficult to really claim a mandate and also more difficult to win a contested election, NYC is huge but the voter pool tiny so it's needle in a haystack campaigning. Not a good set up.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)doesn't prove anything especially since you're sighting general election stats where everyone, regardless of party affiliation, can vote.
NY is a solidly blue state. General elections here aren't very competitive. That has more to do with low turnout than the laws on having closed primaries.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)October 2010, George Gonzalez, executive director of the New York City Board of Elections, was fired amid scandal. For nearly three years, the patronage-laden and much-maligned agency went without someone heading its operations, as its politically appointed commissioners (five Democrats and five Republicans) were unable to come up with the six votes needed for any candidate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511782261
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Gonzalez didn't make the law. The law has been in place for decades.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)oasis
(49,408 posts)Denis 11
(280 posts)Either Dem or Repub.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Forty Years of Freefall in New York Voter Turnout
http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/5432-forty-years-of-freefall-in-new-york-voter-turnout
New York State Near Bottom in Voter Turnout Rankings
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
New York's 2014 voter turnout 49th best in the US
Report shows just 29 percent of eligible voters cast ballots
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/New-York-s-2014-voter-turnout-49th-best-in-the-US-6146753.php
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)None of the links are from major sources and the link to election laws is tenuous at best. So in effect you've proved my point for me. Thanks.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They say "New York can and should do more to encourage civic participation among voters starting with reforming our outdated, restrictive election laws." They make a direct and obvious link between the restrictive and antique election laws and the habitual apathy of NY voters.
20% Turnout in New York Primaries
http://www.nytimes.com/news/election-2013/2013/11/06/new-york-turnout-appears-headed-for-record-low/
New York must do everything possible to reverse states dwindling voter rate
Voter participation in New York has been slumping for years. This time around, employers across the city and state are trying to help change that.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-y-reverse-state-bad-voter-rate-article-1.2604782
Why is voter turnout in New York so low?
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/why-is-voter-turnout-in-new-york-so-low/
New York Had the Second-Lowest Voter Turnout So Far This Election Season
http://www.thenation.com/article/new-york-had-the-second-lowest-voter-turnout-so-far-this-election-season/
What's your new argument?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)have never been a major issues. Nothing you've posted disproves that. In fact since you haven't posted anything that does, you are proving my point for me. Again, thanks.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)election issues. You insulted me, so you need to stand up and explain yourself. That's the decent thing to do.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)and you're making a turnout argument that that doesn't disprove my original point.
Sorry that you are insulted, but maybe you should stay out of discussions if you don't want anyone to disagree with you.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)About the CFB
The Campaign Finance Board is a nonpartisan, independent city agency that empowers New Yorkers to make a greater impact on their elections.
The New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB) administers one of the strongest, most effective campaign finance systems in the country. NYCs matching funds program amplifies the voice of average New Yorkers in city elections by matching their small contributions with public funds. By increasing the value of small-dollar contributions, the program reduces the possibility and perception of corruption from large contributions and unlimited campaign spending, and encourages citizens from all walks of life to run for office. Through its rigorous oversight and enforcement efforts, the CFB holds candidates accountable for using public funds responsibly.
The CFB publishes detailed public information about money raised and spent in city elections by candidates and independent spenders, bringing greater transparency to the democratic process. Its NYC Votes campaign engages and educates voters through community outreach, the Voter Guide, and Debate Program, empowering New Yorkers to make informed choices at the polls. In addition, the CFB seeks to improve the voter experience by advocating for legislative changes to the registration and voting process.
http://www.nyccfb.info/about
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)and your turnout argument doesn't hold water.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm also citing major media and NY elected officials. This upsets you because the premise of your OP is so incorrect, so uninformed. It's adorable the way you carry on in the face of fact and citation, you do not agree with your own mayor, your own election officials, your local media nor national media.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)You're trying to link general election turnout with the laws that govern primaries. Two different things.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)rates of voter participation in all varieties of elections. This is because NY runs elections with many restrictions on voters which other States do not have. I'm not 'trying to link' anything to anything as there is no need to do so, each sort of NY election is a free standing shamble. Compare any NY election of any sort to any Oregon election of any sort, we will have much larger turnout no matter. Because NYers do not vote much. NYC is even worse than NY State. NYC votes at a rate of about 20%., that means only about 12% of eligible Democrats in NYC can manage to be bothered to vote. Shameful.
I'm correct here and there is no way for you to make 20% turnout sound good. It's symptomatic of years of apathy and corruption.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)I'm just not buying in your argument that it is only because of the election laws that govern primaries. There are many other factors involved.
beedle
(1,235 posts)there have been lots of previous complaints,
but when the NYS primaries hardly ever matter to the nominations, the profile of these complaints are hardly ever noticed
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/the-last-time-a-n-y-primary-mattered-665272899688 (spoiler - 1988)
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)It has never been a major issue before.
beedle
(1,235 posts)What kind of fucking point are you trying to make? Injustice is only important when you feel it has had YOUR attention for sufficient length of time?
It's okay to gas 1 Jew because "it was never a 'major problem' before"?
It's okay to gas 2 Jews because gassing 1 Jew "was never a major problem before"?
It's okay to gas 100 Jews because gassing 100 Jews "was never a major problem before"?
it's okay to gas 6 million Jews ... ??
I can see why Hillary supporters have no concerns about Wall St. money corruption politicians ... not because it doesn't happen all the time, but because we've always let them get away with it because 'it was never a major problem before' ... the old 'boiling frog' syndrome.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)When you start resorting to cursing and such ridiculous and extreme arguments, you're just admitting that you don't have a legitimate, factual or logic argument to make.
The Nazi holocaust is analogous to NYS election laws? Come on?
And for the record, I voted for Bernie on Tuesday.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)People have been energized. It is a good thing. Shows you the apathy that has crept into our democracy and resulted in oligarchy. If Bernie has failed to do anything else, he's woken up the American people to the loss of their democracy.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)over the last many years discussing the many issues contributing to NY's plunging voter participation rates. You want to pretend that they are magically invalid because they fully contradict the premise of your OP. That's adorable.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)is invalid. There are many contributing factors for it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I have cited NYC and State agencies which agree with me. You keep saying 'that's invalid' and calling your own city agencies 'no major sources'. It's adorable but it's just daft.
You reject NY Times, Network News, City Agencies as sources. Here's MTV News:
There are a lot of reasons besides lack of excitement that New Yorkers dont head to the polls at the same rate as their fellow Americans. Most significantly, the state still makes voting more complicated than it needs to be. Many of the states that boast high turnout have adopted early voting and same-day registration. New York has neither of these things. Its not just that voters arent going to the polls New Yorkers arent registering at the same rate as voters in other states, either, says Jonathan Brater, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice Democracy Program. After falling near the bottom of the rankings for voter registration during the 2012 election, the state began offering online registration through the DMV. However, if many of your voters are coming from a city where driving is optional, that may not be the most efficient way to get as many people signed up as possible.
Some New York officials and advocates are trying to convince legislators to make changes now, given that New Yorks turnout levels keep getting increasingly embarrassing. NYC Votes, a voter outreach campaign affiliated with the New York City Campaign Finance Board, is currently trying to collect petition signatures before its trip to lobby legislators on May 3. Several lawmakers have been pushing legislation that would make it easier to vote for years, although none of them have been considered yet. These changes would move the party enrollment deadline (now obscenely early because party officials are terrified of party raiding) closer to Election Day, institute early voting, or maybe even make voter registration automatic.
http://www.mtv.com/news/2863203/voter-turnout-new-york-2016-elections/
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)There are many contributing factors to low turnout.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the fact that NY is in electoral free fall. The citizens of NY are far too often like you, in denial and unable to cope with the current facts about your city and State. NYers do not bother to vote because they do not trust the election systems nor the officials who benefit from those outdated protocols. It's nothing to be proud of. It's pitiful. I laugh at NY every single election cycle.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)there was evidence presented and evidently it's not good enough.
Ignore this one
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)NY breaks lowest voter turnout record in governors race
Only 3.7 million people bothered to go to the polls the fewest since the state Board of Elections began keeping precise tallies in the 1970s.
That means only about one-third of the states 10.8 million active voters filled out ballots to re-elect Gov. Cuomo.
Thats unbelievably low, extremely low, said political consultant Bruce Gyory. Its the first time the vote has dipped below 4 million, said board spokesman John Conklin.
http://nypost.com/2014/11/06/ny-breaks-lowest-voter-turnout-record-in-governors-race/
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Sorry but not buying it. Maybe there was low turnout because Cuomo had no serious Republican opponent not because of the state's election law requiring a closed primary.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)after source, year after year criticizing NY's dated and burdensome voter restrictions. Your assertion was that there have never been any complaints in the past but as anyone can see, there have been endless critiques, complaints, studies and organized efforts to reform NY's lousy election laws.
All I am doing is presenting NY sources, the criticisms that they have expressed and the relationship they and everyone else see between what the NYC Campaign Finance Board calls "outdated, restrictive election laws."
It's all right there. Pretending that it's all just fine when there is a chorus of outcries for years is adorable. But NY has to face up to these problems eventually.
In the meantime, I'll remain in Oregon where we are capable of having a closed primary with huge turnout. Double that of NY is nothing for us. We vote. NY does not bother. And like many NYers, you are just fine with that.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)There are many other factors that impact turnout and you know it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I never stated any single factor as leading to low turnout, you keep falsely claiming that I have.
Here's NYC's Mayor parroting what is now 'My Position':
The Board of Elections is an outdated organization in dire need of modernization and we need to make these changes now. We cannot allow a single voter to be disenfranchised because of the Board of Elections outdated operations, de Blasio said in a statement.
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2016/4/25/de-blasio-comes-plan-and-20-million-reform-outdated-board-elections
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)No one ever got this far. MAYBE that is why there were few complaints?
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)thesquanderer
(11,992 posts)...as I understand it, the deadline for declaring your party affiliation was less than 4 months in advance of the primary, instead of 6 months in advance.
Another difference... in 2008 there had been over a dozen debates before the deadline, so there was a lot more public awareness. This time, there was only one, and it was barely before the deadline.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)The law says that to change party affiliation it has to be done 30 days prior to the last general election. Since the GE is usually the first week in November, the period would change based on when the primary was scheduled.
thesquanderer
(11,992 posts)...and that's why there was a <4 month gap vs a 6 month gap between when you had to declare a party affiliation and when the primary was. The primary was in early Feb in 2008, vs mid April this year.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I never complained about NY state's 6 month freeze on party-switching before because I didn't know about it before.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)In MN and 21 other states, there is no party-registration in the first place.
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in dissent that long party-switching freezes disenfranchise people.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Thats the only thing different.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...because since 1988, there wasn't a candidate as liberal as Bernie Sanders winning some states before.
In 1988, Jesse Jackson did, but Jackson never had a government job, and I prefer presidential candidates with government experience.
Following the primaries closely leads me to learn about voting rights issues which I wasn't aware of before, such as NY state's 6 month freeze on party-switching.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)Karma13612
(4,554 posts)the number of Independents is increasing, and a lot of people who are not Democrats wanted to vote for Bernie, and unless they became acutely aware of the 6 month deadline back in October, then they were not able to switch their affiliation and vote for Bernie in the closed primary.
When was the last time we had a very viable non-Dem non-Republican presidential candidate?
As a New Yorker, I wasn't even aware of the law until this election cycle. I have always been a Democrat but became aware of the draconian 6 month deadline as I started talking with other Bernie supporters and started paying closer attention.
IIUC, New York State's 6 month deadline for being affiliated with the Democratic party in order to vote in the April primary is the longest deadline of all 50 states.
Something that I believe NY election law should not be proud of and should consider altering.