to offer same-day registration the way 11 states and D.C. do today.

They couldn't care less about democracy.

That's who set the rules. Dems were just lazy. But not this year and the years to come. The revolution will not be stopped.

But we had main in voting up to a day or so before (so it would be there on caucus day), and then our only rule was you had to choose a party when you voted (if you were voting in the democratic caucus you would choose to just vote in that one, that's all).

and has been in effect under governors of both parties. The Sanders campaign had plenty of time to adjust for this.

in every state for the primary and the general.

No Democrat should be against that.

NY Democrats is something Bernie's campaign should have thought out.... luckily I'm surprised he did not do a major voter push in September.

However, election tampering and voter suppression are both rampant and documented.

Back a few years ago, when all of DU understood this, anyone who used the voter fraud meme was summarily shown the door.

No one said it had anything to do with voter fraud, did they? The idea is that Republicans cannot cross over to vote for our weakest candidate and vice-versa.

You may not agree that this is a problem but it's at least an understandable one that both parties have agreed to for a long time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

They passed laws to stop people from ballot harvesting with a huge fine and jail time in Arizona, but nothing as of yet has come of what they did.


That being said not sure if I liked some of the ballot harvesting the parties have done where they seem to target people that they can manipulate. But also not sure how much of that actually occurs.

Before this primary Democrats used to object to such things when the GOP did it.

Found this out like 4 months ago

It's truly absurd

And what is worse is Clinton fans almost gleeful about it

in answer to your question...

BTW, you are not the only one that happened to. Clinton and repug voters were also affected by the NY law.

Sanders supporters are the only ones who seem to be making a huge stink of a law that has been in place for decades.

Would that be because the Sanders campaign didn't do their due diligence well enough to find out themselves and alert their supporters?

They knew New York was coming up long before 6 months ago.

if Bernie can't save this one.

are one in the same..

It's just so surprising that so many here can't see it. I truly don't get it..
Just look at what's happened to our country. Look at all of the corporate special interests that are controlling everything. The elites in both parties only care about lining their own pocketbooks with no regard at all to the working class. Our country will be gone if we don't stand up. HRC promises just more of the same Clinton/Bush corporatist politics. Is that really what we want for our children?

...but much easier to blame Democrats, don't you thing?

And it was designed to prevent the major political parties from overpowering small, independent parties.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/20/1517560/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Round-up-It-was-up-to-you-New-York-New-York

...the six month period is for people who wanted to "show their independence" by not becoming a Democrat in the first place, and suddenly decided they couldn't stand on their principles.

long time ago. But there are some Democratic candidates they would vote for. But not every Democrat is acceptable to every voter. Sometimes there is no good acceptable choice in a Democratic primary. Six months ago they never even heard of Bernie Sanders. It's totally unfair to lock these people out of the political process.

You're suppressing the vote and bragging about it.

...but if your friends wanted to assert their independence by joining WFP, they can vote in the WFP Primary.

and these are the rules in NY and that's what they were when he declared his candidacy. Nobody recently changed them, they're not a surprise and they've been this way for a long, long time. You can't just change the rules in the middle because somebody doesn't like them.

To call this "voter suppression" is a load of crap. The rules have been this way for a long time. Not knowing the rules isn't an excuse. The rules apply equally to everyone, they don't put an undue burden on one group over another and they don't cost any money to comply with there rules.

See, you can be honest ... you just clearly have to work at it.

Primaries are for political parties to choose their nominees. Want to choose a party's candidate? join the party. You don't even have to pay any dues or even donate one red cent. If I had a nickel for every non-union teacher who slipped me their contract negotiating wishlists, I'd have a lot of damned nickels.

Seems Sanders' campaign didn't do it's due diligence to find out NY voting requirements and alert its supporters to secure their ability to vote.

They've know the NY primary was coming up long before 6 months ago.

These young voters are fired up for Bernie. Finally for the first time in their lives many are engaged in our political system and now we say they can't vote? Six months ago many hadn't heard of Bernie since the MSM was trying to blackout coverage of him. The NY vote is so important yet so much of the vote is being suppressed. It's plain undemocratic.

The primaries for state legislative seats can be very important, given the number of solidly Democratic urban districts and solidly Republican rural districts. Those primaries will be this September. For that purpose, registered voters who wanted to change their party affiliation (or affiliate at all, having previously been independent) were subject to that same October 9 deadline -- meaning they had to make the change about eleven months before the primary.

I can see some rationale for a closed primary, but no other state has the kind of super-closed primary that New York does. The rules are far too restrictive.

Their "right to vote" was not infringed at all.

joining a private political party. So much for being inspired by a democratic candidate you can't vote for.

Seeing how independents will have a say in the general election, and will be voting for the nominee that the party nominates, it makes sense that they should have a say in who that nominee that they are voting for is. A closed primary is limiting political freedom, period!

SCOTUS has consistently ruled that non-members of a private organization have no right to demand to invade the organization and take it over.

They CAN have a say in picking a party nominee, if they join the party. Choosing the be an independent has consequences, one of which is being excluded from internal party processes. The voter can just as easily choose to participate as they chose to not participate.

You don't have a Constitutional right to do whatever the fuck you want. Far from it. Stop misrepresenting this issue.

and not turn them away.

You changed tack pretty quick once I proved that private organizations get to set their own rules.

Again, it boils down to whether or not the individual voter CHOSE to remove themselves from the party. If the voter chose to be outside, then they gave up any right to influence or affect the party. Willingly. It was not taken away, because they actually gave it away.

in the GE, then they should have had a say in who the parties nominate." In what world?

They don't work, you know put skin in the game, so why should they all of a sudden have a say in who a party nominates to run in the general?

Come off your too-hip-for-that-high-horse and join a party, or better yet, start your own party and have your own primary.

And that the registration rules apply to both Parties?

more voter suppression

The 6 months deadline was ONLY if you were changing your registration to being a Democrat from anything else.

And that is NOT voter suppression. You many not agree with it, but that still doesn't make it voter suppression.

However, if you are already a republican or independent who wants to vote in the Democratic party primary, the cut off was six months ago. That is to prevent members of one party migrating to the other to create havoc when there is a primary.

Those who were unregistered at all I believe had to register by mid/late March.

Why join a party you don't and won't support? Just to slash and burn it? Bernie is now beginning to pay the price for this kind of attitude.