but it died in the republican controlled upper house

I would support some reform. Same day voter registration, no excuse absentee vote by mail, early voting, automatic voter registration, among others. But I would not support changing to an open primary or eliminating a deadline to change party affiliation. I might support shortening the deadline down to 6 months.

If I was living in New York I would be registering as a Democrat and be proud.

This could change as Dems have a shot at control of the State Senate. Democrats already hold a majority in the Assembly. This election gives them control of both houses and the Governorship.

Republican Dean Skelos is off to jail on corruption charges. A special election to fill his seat was held. Dem Todd Kaminsky leads in the count.

Then, you have to make the Democratic Majority more competent and ethical than the last one.

My State of Oregon is a closed Primary. Easily twice the turnout NY can muster. Year in and year out. And you blame the GOP, then you blame the Democrats. I blame a bunch of self interested bipartisan NYers.

for taking the time to ask.

here's one waiting to happen, Go Get'um HC

(When properly and condescendingly done.)

That's amazing! Of course we should blame Republicans they have total control over our Primaries.


I'd understand if it was.. I dunno in the General Election right now.
But that's sad that you really think Republicans are messing with our Primary... lol

Did no one complaining think this through at all?

...New York's election laws apply to both Parties and go back decades.

However, if you use state election equipment, that comes with state oversight.

if we don't use state equipment and count and use our own ballots we're good to go

The Democratic, Republican, Green, and Communist parties (among others) are all incorporated entities, which gives them in general freedom from government interference in their internal decisionmaking processes. States offer the parties use of state election facilities as the carrot to get them to accept state oversight.

But, if a party doesn't use any state facilities, there's no particular constitutional protection to any given person's ability to participate in the caucus or (non-state-supported) primary.

so wouldn't we have the "general freedom" from ourselves?

And it took significant legal and political work to get any Federal oversight of subjurisdictional elections, and it's still far from perfect.

have the freedom of decision making, why can't both have the ability to nominate(caucus and primaries) and elect (setting up the process of receiving and counting ballots) for their candidates ?

I don't know where you get the idea that they don't. Most of the "small" parties do their national caucus via a conference call. The D and R parties are perfectly free to do that too.

if the decision-making methods of private corporations, including government, are legit in the nominating process why isn't it also applied to the GE

I don't mean to be condescending, but do you honestly not understand the difference?

The only federal candidates are Pres and VP and the people have no input on VP

Do you honestly not understand that the private corporations nominating process is for the President (a federal office) and why shouldn't they have the same ability to collect and count the November votes (party and/or government)

Not the President. There is never actually a ballot anywhere for "President" except in the electoral college; the elections are managed by the states.

2. "Because they're the internal decisionmaking process of private corporations

The Democratic, Republican, Green, and Communist parties (among others) are all incorporated entities, which gives them in general freedom from government interference in their internal decisionmaking processes. States offer the parties use of state election facilities as the carrot to get them to accept state oversight.

But, if a party doesn't use any state facilities, there's no particular constitutional protection to any given person's ability to participate in the caucus or (non-state-supported) primary."

Please elaborate on "general freedom from government interference in their internal decisionmaking processes" If electing a nominee is an "internal decisionmaking" process (controlling the ballot and count) why isn't that same process applicable in November? If one private corporation decides to not use another corporation's election facilities isn't that an internal decision also?

I literally find it impossible to believe you can't understand this.

the state which is also a corporation, so again I ask between corporations why isn't each corporation free to choose their internal decisionmaking process for both nominations and corporate "public elections?

Federal control over state elections is quite limited in scope.

On corporate "public elections" between both corporations (government and parties) each can freely choose the method of receiving and counting ballots for nominations, Presidential and down ticket races because this is the internal decisionmaking process of corporations without government interference.

Primaries are run by the state and the rules for them are set by the state. The state of NY is partially run by Republicans so they get a partial say.

I live in NC and was wondering why a blue state's voting laws were so awful that NC GOP used them as model legislation. Now I know.

Isn't it the party's choice whether it's open or closed?

his Repugs did it.

I do want to know who is responsible for the voter roll purges, which really weren't purges since the registrations changed rather than disappeared. I also want to know how many republican voters were affected as well.

Once I have those answers, then I will decide whom to blame.

Let me be clear, I do not blame Hillary. I blame the NY Democrats who claim to run NY. People like your State Senator, who year after year have watched NY participation plummet while you do nothing about it because it would bother the Republicans. NY politicians use 'deadlock' like a carpenter uses a hammer.

The problems NY has with elections are much older than Hillary's candidacy and those problems are in no way limited to Presidential level elections. About one NYC resident out of eight bother to vote for mayor. That's Hillary free apathy, Bernieless apathy. It's NY's very own apathy.

until the review is done, then they'll have to split them cuz of the cheating. or nullify the results.

....asking if anyone knew the political affiliation of the individuals with election oversight in the areas where the voting "hiccups" have occurred.

I never thought the hiccups had anything to do with Clinton. That they are happening under Republican oversight makes WAY more sense, and is definitely something which should concern all of us for the coming GE.