has always been problematic.

Which is why we have undecideds right up until voting day in national elections.

with no party identification, Republicans have a harder time disenfranchising voters. What happened in Az. wouldn't happen.

Just a tarp stretched out on 4 poles will do, in her opinion.

...to get the best representation. Let me explain:
Dem Primaries should involve registered Dems and Independents
Rep primaries should involve registered Reps and Independents

Independents should definitely have a say in which party they feel would best represent them. They have as much skin in the game as anyone else.

But it isn't.

If you want a say in the primary process of the Democratic party, just join it.

If you don't identify with a political party enough to join it, you shouldn't get a say in its decision-making process.

If a person prefers the Democrat, they are declaring their Democratic allegiance with their vote.

Having to declaring party affiliation, particularly when the consequences of remaining unaffiliated are not disclosed, is problematic. (People are not warned that they will be denied access to primary elections if they are unaffiliated at the time they register.)

The unaffiliated who decide they prefer Hillary or Sanders in the two weeks before the election, when the candidates are doing most of their campaigning, are screwed in NY.

https://vote.berniesanders.com/NY

New York has closed primaries...

If you are not registered as a Democrat, the deadline to change your party affiliation has already passed.

primary.

Sorry but deal with it.

Either you favor the concept that voting should carry with it as few burdens as possible, or you don't. You apparently don't. 'nough said.

feel like Hillary might be a better choice?

You are aware that in NY, anyone already registered had to have declared Democratic party affiliation last October 2015, in order to vote for Hillary (or Bernie) in Mid April of 2016.

That is a six month lag between picking a party, and voting in the closed primary.

I think that is just plain disenfranchisement.

And I believe NY has the longest calendar gap of the closed primary states.

SIX MONTHS.

And to boot, the first democratic debate hadn't even happened by the deadline to declare Democratic Party affiliation.

That is not even democratic. And I am NOT in the minority in my opinion.

supporter, feels about possibly disenfranchising voters who might have added to Hillary's lead by having the chance to vote for her in the NY Primary.

disenfranchising those who might want to come around to the democratic party, but are doing it a bit too late?

You seriously are so confident that Hillary doesn't need any new voters to help bolster her support in NY?

Wow.

The 6 month rule could be changed to a month.

Only party members should have a say in selecting party nominees. Everyone has a say in November.

Without having to change their registration.

BTW, primaries or caucuses are not provided for in the Constitution. They were a creation of political parties which originally didn't have them and then went with state and national conventions. Later adding in primaries and caucuses.

matter if individuals can vote or not in a primary.

Do you also thinks it perfectly fair that the election laws vary as much as the weather from one state to another?

By November, getting to vote in the general, is a llittle bit late for selecting the nominee.

If Hillary was behind in the polls I doubt you would have the same opionion about the fairness of closed primaries with long party registration deadlines.

It would be great if they all had the same laws regarding registration deadlines, allowing ex-felons to vote without going through hoops, actually make registration automatic for all citizens of age.

As for the nominee, that is for members of a political party to decide. It could go back to how they did it in the past and that would involve fewer people making the decision. Either party leaders from all the states making that decision or it is done at state conventions leading up to the national conventions. The need for primary elections or caucuses could be eliminated entirely.

BTW, in some states there are still state-wide candidates that are decided at state conventions instead of in the primaries.

I am not just talking about NY.

It's an undue burden in any state to require party affiliation and update of registration so far in advance to participate in a PPE, primary, or caucus. It is simply an unnecessary roadblock that should be removed.

And it's an undue burden to require specific types of ID. Just because NY is not one of the places that has such requirements, doesn't mean those requirements aren't objectionable as adding unnecessary roadblocks.

I simply cannot face going out to register for the primary! I can not!




Seriously? The party gets to pick their nominee; if you want in, join.

Potential voters should know what to expect when they vote. If they vote irregularly it is on them.

Campaigns should also have time to identify potential voters so they can reach out to them. If there wasn't a deadline they would miss that opportunity.

Washington State has done just fine in "reaching out" to voters. They outlawed party affiliation declarations in voter registration in 1934.

The government should have NO role in helping out any political party. (Aside from ensuring that no political party is discriminated against, that is.)

Opened primaries lead to party raiding (voting in other party's primary for strategic reasons). Maybe if you could vote in only one party's primary during a given election cycle and would give up the right to vote in another party's primary, an open primary could work. But if a party has an uncontested candidate, party members still could vote strategically in the other party's primary.

Not even in open primaries. They just have a choice to pick without the need to register your party affiliation.

what if an independent or republican changes? of course, there's enough time to change your registration.

you can do it on-line. my late husband was an I but wanted to vote for obama in the primary. he did it 1 week before. we weren't sure if it was enough time, but it was.

--as an "unaffiliated" --you can have a D, R or non-partisan ballot in the primary. It's restricted options, but at least you get to vote.

..Organizations.

States should not discriminate.

It is particularly problematic if, at the time they register, people are not warned of the consequences of remaining unaffiliated. (i.e., That you will be denied access to primaries. When I registered in NJ, there was no such warning. Maybe other states do, but I have my doubts.)

It's a much better system in WA, where their has been no party affiliation required since 1934,

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/bp_history.aspx

... the Washington State Grange together with the state AFL-CIO and other allies proposed an Initiative to the Legislature, which would amend state law to allow: "all properly registered voters to vote for their choice at any primary election for any candidate for each office, regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or adherence on the part of the voter." 1934.

That is what Virginia does....

If Democrats do not include independents in their election process by virtue of open primaries and GOTV, they are pissing away the opportunity to create an unbeatable super-majority statewide and nationally.

They should not be allowed a say in who the party nominates.

Maybe they should form their own party and have an open primary.

That makes them a bad choice. We should be as inclusive as possible, IMO.

I see that as a positive thing.

We could have an election and a run-off, like in many non-partisan races.

But the purpose of a primary is to pick who is representing a particular party. The person representing a party ought to be picked by the party.

with potential POTUS nominees from both parties on one slate would be best for selecting ultimate candidates and also for sending useful signals to voters.

I would also like that the winner from each state in each party get all the delegate votes and be required to vote for the winning candidate for their party at the first vote of the nominating convention.

I would also like an easy but reasonable process where any POTUS candidate that can get at least 5% (or some other set level) of the national primary vote be placed on the final POTUS ballots if they desire as an independent candidate (third party candidates would remain status quo).

It protects the party from the other party's meddling.

They may technically be private organizations, but they have a de facto semi-governmental role as gatekeepers of the political process. In some cases their advantages are even written into law.

Blocking independents from primaries is locking us out from meaningful participation in choosing our representatives.

We just take top 2 regardless of of party id, i hope we run the blue dogs out on a rail this year in the state house and senate Cali has way to much Fracking

hell I like VT way of doing it NO PARTY REGISTRATION across the board. Combine that with Oregon Motor voter bill and only by mail voting and it would solve a lot of issues.

But I am a sucker for well, democracy, with a small d

don't know. Can't decide.

Folks in a party have worked long and hard to build up the party, and only they should get a voice into who leads the party. If you're an Independent, fine. Can't have both.

I understand why they did it but I admit that parties don't have primaries so that people who hate that party have a say in who it nominates.

But why have parties at all if they can't choose their own nominees.

Anyone who wants to vote should. I would love to vote in R primaries. The Rs affect me as a citizen, so I should have a say in who their nominee is. And vice versa, and same for minor parties like Green, etc.

and already are in some states like Alaska, are currently completely shut out of the process for determining who the nominees are. I personally don't think that's fair. If you're going to have closed caucuses or primaries, at least allow same-day party registration for people who are already registered voters.

...is to require the Jungle Primary system that California uses; e.g. everyone has the right to vote for ANY candidate running, and the top two go into a runoff.

Less trouble makers, more sincere voters.

In our last municipal primary, many voters showed up wanting to vote for the candidate they believed in, only to find that they hadn't enrolled in a party way back when. They thought of themselves as Democrats, always voted Democrat, but had never checked that little box.

I went to the registrar with some of them to double check, and sure enough, they were unaffiliated. In some instances, they had checked the Democratic box but had also checked a box that said they did not wish to enroll in a party at this time. The registrar wouldn't let them vote.

One such voter was a 50+ year old man voting for the very first time. It broke my heart, but angered me, too, to see him have such a bad experience.

Left wing independents and Democrats should decide the nominee, no republicans