Well, these are the rules. They’re this way in some states, and not in others. You know who else couldn’t vote in the Democratic Party’s primary? Republicans! But they can in some states! Is that ‘unfair’? Undemocratic?
The primary system is even a few steps more removed from ‘pure Democracy’ than our presidential election system, but then no one should be surprised about this.
If you want to argue that the whole primary system is faulty, or the whole party system is faulty, then make your argument. But pouting about closed primaries being unfair to your particular candidate misses the point that the rules about this kind of ‘voting’ are totally in the hands of the private organization that organizes it.
Bottom line, the primary process is not a ‘fair’ Democratic process. It’s just a way that the Parties (each in their own way) developed to gauge the support of various Party-supported candidates so they can pick the one most likely to win the election.
These were people who hadn’t voted in the last several elections and either couldn’t be bothered or couldn’t be reached when notifications of their being purged from the list were sent out.
Just wondering how this will be laid at Hillary’s door. Didn’t you know, she caused global warming!
Only the independent Bernie fans who’ve remained ignorant of election laws in New York were unable to vote. He’s posing as a Democrat this cycle–they should have signed up in time to do the same.
To be fair, ignorant Hillary fans were also unable to vote. So were felons, people who didn’t bother to respond to notifications, and people who had moved. And Republicans who would have liked to cross over, either because they are disgusted by their own party or choices right now, or because they want to vote for the least viable Democrat in the general.
7 months ago, when the deadline passed, Sanders was polling under 25% nationally and probably less in New York. Many of Bernie fans weren’t fans in time to register. Sure sure, it’s still all their own fault and them’s the rules, etc etc.
Then whose fault is it? Hilary’s? Or do you think the State of New York (or whoever runs it, I’m foreign) should have anticipated a massive influx of previously non-voting and independent people on a scale not known in recent years, out of pattern of the previous few decades, and somehow changed the rules?
I am not saying it’s anyone’s fault in particular but it’s a bad system. They should change the rules simply because a “super closed” primary like this is so exclusionary. I don’t think there’s any other state that comes close to this far back of a deadline.
And even if they anticipated it, New York Democrats (its the party, not the state, that picks their rules) chose their rules to reward party loyalty. They get to do that. Other states have open primaries. Other states caucus (which disenfranchises those the have to work, can’t find childcare, don’t have the time to spend a few hours at a caucus, aren’t in town).
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone from New York, which is one of the states where the idea of party loyalty is important and goes a LONG way back. (It could be argued that was the reason Burr shot Hamilton)
What Dangerosa said. I see your point CarnalK, and there’s an argument to be had about whether it should be reformed. I am not saying you’ve claimed this, but some of the comments I’ve seen elsewhere are on the verge of implying that this episode is a deliberate gaming by ‘The Establishment’ ™ to shut out Sanders.
Not 'shortly" the ones who complained said it was in 2012. Before Sanders announced. There’s no way this was a plot to steal the election from Sanders.
At the election district I worked yesterday there were at least 20 people registered as blank (independent) who wanted to vote and could not.
I’m guessing most of them were Republican at heart and wanted to vote for Trump, but I could be wrong about that.
My ED is 3:2 in GOP vs Democrat registration, but actually had more Democrats voting yesterday than Republicans. 46.6% registered Democrats voted and 27.1% of registered Republicans. I’d guess regular GOP voters did not like their choices.
ED went for Hillary and Trump with Kasich a close second. Cruz had only about 2% of the vote.
They knew over a decade ago they if the registers as Independent, (or other parties) they couldnt vote in the Democratic Primary. This was no surprise. No new rules.
And, why the hell should independents be allowed to have a voice in who the Democratic Party pick as their candidate? If they wanna be a Democrat, register as one, and support the party.
There is a reasonable discussion to be had that maybe the party should insist on each state having less dissimilar processes and agree which process is more consistent with what the party overall wants to accomplish in choosing a candidate for the general election. Likely would be neither caucuses or closed primaries with registration changes only open extremely far in advance of the race.
But right now individual state parties are allowed to decide these issues on their own within a wide range and it would be underhanded to change them during a cycle out of concerns of extant rules favoring or disfavoring one or the other candidate.
Well, that is obviously ridiculous as this rule has been around for decades. But there can be little doubt that this rule is indeed meant to help party insiders over newbies and “outsiders”.
And because this is a state run primary, the state ALLOWS the parties to set some of the rules but they are under no obligation to allow this super closed provision. If the parties don’t like that fact they can start running caucuses on their own dime.
THANK YOU! I was starting to think I was the only one who remembered the 2008 primaries. Most of the Hillary supporters seem to have chucked her conduct in that election right down the memory hole.
To the OP: On behalf of your fellow Sanders supporters, please stop embarrassing us.
To the general point: Parties are private organizations and can choose their nominees in whatever bizarre way they want to. Having said that, it seems pretty clear to me that allowing independents to vote in your primary makes it more likely that you will nominate a candidate who appeals to independents, which in turn makes it more likely that you will win elections.
The NY rules, which are much more restrictive than those of almost every other state, serve to discourage voter participation and protect incumbents and establishment politicians. These are IMO intrinsically bad things, but it’s silly to claim that these long-established rules were put in place to sabotage a particular campaign.
One party or the other controls every state government but they all have different primary rules. And I am getting confused here, Dangerosa said the Democrats decided the party registration deadline, but don’t both parties have the same deadline? I think it’s a state set deadline.
