... only after deciding that the earlier date might hurt a candidate who attracts people who are usually outside the party in question.

In other words, its an issue solely because he doesn't like the outcome. He then looks for rule changes that might have helped Bernie, and declares those as issues for which Bernie should be furious about as if some one changed the rules just to screw Bernie.

Which is not the case.

The rules were known well in advance. If Bernie had been a mainstream Dem for decades, running against Clinton, the early date is a non-issue.

But because things aren't going Bernie's way ... NOW it becomes an issue to be angry about.

asking politely for evidence that the powers that be in NY knew - 6 months ago - that entire buildings and blocks in Brooklyn were going to vote for Bernie on Tuesday and that's why they were purged. Do you have any? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

to the primaries. Not everybody's a political junkie like we are. Some people have school jobs kids family a social life things to do. Six months ago people were not paying attention.

with my question? Bernie supporters are INSISTING that the purge ONLY hurt Bernie. I want to know how you can make that claim considering what was done - entire buildings and streets and neighborhoods were purged. How did the powers that be know, 6 months ago, who was going to vote for Bernie? Given how well Hillary did in all 5 boroughs of NY, it looks to me that SHE was the one that got hurt by the purge and it would have made her win even bigger without it.

What you have shown is that some people realized that the Oct date could hurt Bernie if those people who were not already Dems and who would support him did not switch in time. Basically, you want non-Dems to influence how the Dems pick their nominee.

And as I said, the rules were known.

25 days is not early enough to change the rules, but it is early enough to try and communicate the issue to voters.

Those voters were not suppressed. The rules were known. No one changed the rules to prevent Bernie supporters from being able to vote in any primary they wanted to participate in. If that happened, then he could be "furious".

There is no reason for Bernie to be "furious" about a rule that was in place and known.

Its like a baseball team being angry about home runs because no one on their team can hit the ball that far.

Of course there were efforts before that. There was opposition when the deadline was put in place.

And months before the election isn't "too late." The deadline and procedures could have been made more reasonable at any point prior to the election -- including implementing same day registration process.

Which would have taken time.

Its called logistics.

You can't just declare "same day registration" and have it happen. You have to figure out how to pay for it, and make sure its secure.

Oh and before that ... you actually have to have all of the principles AGREE on exactly what changes they plan to make. Do you want Republicans being able to switch to Dem to screw with your primary because their primary is already over? How to you prevent that?

All of this has to be debated, and then a plan, with logistics be developed and agreed to.

And that's not happening in 25 days.

Plenty of time in Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, or March to work out details of new plan.

And people were working to make it clear a new plan was needed.

Quite blaming the victims.

1st response to OP is a winner...both angry and irrelevant. Congratulations!!

from joining the democratic party just because Bernie drew them to the party. first debate was after the registration switch deadline, so many had no idea who he was. odds are HRC will win the primary, but we just lost a shit ton of people who may have switched to the democratic party and continued to vote dem for years to come. i don't think it's very smart to exclude people in this way that might start to identify with being a democratic voter. if you exclude people from the selection process, they will be much less invested in the GE. it's bad for the party.

That the entire point of having the primary spread out over so many months is supposedly to allow less financially supported or well known candidates to have a chance against the big money candidates. So now we have a candidate who has done exactly that thing, but one of the biggest states won't allow him to bring in new voters unless he'd already attracted them six months ago. That makes no sense to me.

Shillin fer Hillary! The CORRUPTION in NEW YORK WAS HISTORIC!

Why Hillary should not be the nominee no matter what... She cannot be trusted... to tell you what color shoes she has on!

The problem is, there is a lot of complaining about this fact the day/week of the primary. These kind of protests should have been happening months and months ago, maybe years!

For example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3ksv98/new_york_needs_your_help_the_rapidly_approaching/

This is not just "after the fact" complaining.

Unfortunately, the media couldn't be bothered to notice what was going on until the damage was done.

not because it hurt Bernie Sanders

just like caucuses are bad, regardless of the fact that they help Bernie Sanders

I live in a state where independents can vote in either primary, then they can change their status back to unaffiliated before they leave the polling station. Efficient. I do it every time I vote.

NY needs to start right now changing the rules for the next election so that at least people aren't locked out of voting based on their independent status.

... look forward to finding out what they learn about t#he extent, and causes. And will raise hell if no one is held accountable. I think the NY primary will warrant a big "not legitimate" asterisk. They can claim "she would have won anyway" but that is irrelevant in a primary. The delegates are proportionally allocated. Small changes in margin here and there can make big differences.

to vote in the Dem primary.

I don't think they realize just how many people are onto the scam.

they get their info from a variety of sources on the internet.

one woman, the NY Post is calling here a scapegoat, for what happened in Brooklyn. Not good enough, LET THOSE PEOPLE VOTE and all the others whose right to vote was stolen from them across NY state.

Otherwise all this, the promised 'investigation' by the State AG, the Mayor's feeble 'go vote it was a mistake' too late public announcement, this suspension MEANS NOTHING.

A new date for those voters across the state must be set, otherwise NYers will view the results as completely illegitimate.

to vote was arranged by a judge. Then it was changed AGAIN, but the judge's order will be carried out. This must happen in Az and NY. No voter should be denied their rights like this, it is SHAMEFUL, regardless of which candidate is affected.

I'm shocked at some of Hillary's supporters who are dismissing an issue that was once a PRIMARY issue for Democrats, on THIS very forum. It sure has wakened up a lot of people to the whole corrupted System, not just on the Repub side.

not seen anything from them about them defending the rights of voters.

We won, move on.

We'll call you when we need you

When you register to vote, you check a box to join a party. It's not hard.

and with voters' party registrations being changed without their knowledge after the deadline.

The deadline is maybe too early, but I do like how it prevents "Operation Chaos" type nonsense from Republicans from happening.

As for registrations being changed without people's knowledge, that is a whole separate problem that definitely needs to be investigated and addressed.

This is better for democratic values how?

Thanks for the thread, pat_k.

People had to change their party affiliation by October 9. How would that only affect Sanders' voters? It affected anyone who wanted to vote in the primary. Heck, even two of Trump's kids couldn't vote for him. It would also have affected any Clinton supporter who hadn't declared party affiliation. Want to vote in a closed primary? Check the rules for your state and register on time.

Sanders supporters are just more upset about it.

I don't know why Hillary's supporters aren't angry too. It's sort of mystifying. So many potential new Democratic voters locked out of the process, and barely a peep from Hillary and her supporters.

Although, I'm right across the river and won't get to vote until June.

The party rigging everything for Hillary will not be forgotten nor forgiven.

THIS RIGHT HERE

Bernie. So if the "party" is rigging things for Hillary, they screwed this one up.

A closed primary is precisely that, closed. No mystery, no rigging, anyone could have just followed the rules and registered before the deadline. It didn't only affect Sanders' voters, it also affected the voters of every other candidate. For example, Ivanka and Eric Trump couldn't vote for their father.

I'm not addressing whether the rule happened, this year, to benefit one candidate, or the issue of people improperly denied the right to vote because their registrations were switched. I'm addressing only the absurdly early deadline.

Consider two hypothetical New York City voters. Jeff is a millennial who registered as unaffiliated because he thought both major parties were corporatist bullshit. He watched the first debate, was astounded and inspired to hear a candidate who spoke to him, and reregistered as a Democrat so he could vote for Bernie.

Alice is a middle-aged woman, born and raised Republican, who since the 1990s has taken it more or less for granted that both Clintons are evil incarnate. She has, nevertheless, become increasingly disturbed about the rightward (lunaticward) lurch of her party. She also watched the Democratic debate and, getting her first real look at Hillary Clinton, saw someone she actually could support. That impelled her final break (maybe with an assist from Lincoln Chafee because he was one of the few Republicans she admired and his switch influenced her). She reregistered as a Democrat so she could vote for Hillary.

As the linked article points out, it's one thing to want to stop "Operation Chaos" type game-playing. It's quite another to exclude genuine changes of heart. Neither Jeff nor Alice could vote in this week's primary. Is that reasonable?

It goes further. New York will have primaries in June for Congress and the U.S. Senate, and in September for state legislative seats. Neither Jeff nor Alice can vote in any of those primaries, either.

Next year there will be primaries for Mayor of New York and other local offices. That's the first time these people can vote. In other words, we say to Jeff and Alice, "Welcome to the Democratic Party! Because you didn't join until October of 2015, however, we won't let you vote in any of our primaries until September of 2017. We have to make sure you're sincere."

The rule is far too restrictive.