Anyone in Calif. attempting to change party affiliation from some party to any other party is being told, why not go as a
"Non designated voter."

It is a meme the local Registrar of Voters is using.

They will add, "You still can vote in The Democratic Party Primary. You just don't need to saddle yourself with a party designation."

Okay theoretically that is true. But since the ballots sent out by mail were probably prepared by late April, if the voter going in between May 1st and May 23rd does indeed decide to go without a Party designation, they go home and then
next day they find their ballot in the mail, with the OLD PARTY's designation.

This is where it gets tricky:

So technically they still can vote in the Demcoratic Primary.

[h2][font color=red]

Since they have a ballot with the Old Party's Designation, the voter now needs to know they HAVE TO bring that ballot with them, along with the postal card they will get in the mail proving they are now registered Democratic Party.

That ballot sent by mail has to be spoiled, and turned in, before you' re going to be able to vote.

And even then, they might be told they need to vote on a provisional ballot.
[/h2][/font color+red]

I only know all this because I have surrounded myself with some exceptionally knowledgeable people. But
most voters don't know this.

HRC's people, that is, the DNC, control the vote count. Who knows if those provisional ballots than get counted?

"... even if that other person is you."

But I thought that would be rude.

i don't think people registering voters are legally allowed to tell you how to register - thats one problem.

since counties run the actual voting ot would be interesting to see which ones may be remiss

Problems with. There was no need for the county worker to even make her comments - she made them as she handed me the new registration form.

She was one of the workers and not the Registrar herself. So I will be calling the Registrar herself now that I realize that this sort of stuff is happening here.

primary date.

In other elections, the choice can be even narrower by the time of the California primary.

That's just the way it is. Would we rather California was among the earliest to vote, or even first because, after all, with over 40 millions residents don't they have a special right to create a dialogue of "how can they possibly catch up"? Or don't they?

The principle is one man, one vote, no matter where you live. Instead of whining about knowing who's ahead or even destined to win before I vote, my concern sticks firmly on getting money out of politics.

As for California, I was just grateful that they passed the law that kept those of us in the Pacific time zone from knowing who our next president was going to be before we even voted. It didn't negate my vote in any way, but it did stink.

To show some class...

Under him.

And why doesn't the media cover any of the more contentious legal battles? Where is our forthright media in telling us what is going on?

Sanders can't get enough voters interested in him to win. That's his fault, no one else is to blame. All your conspiracy theories may seem real to you, but reasonable people just aren't buying it. No matter what the media says, unless they are offering up hosannas praising Sanders, you loy immediately see some sinister plot and start yelling that you was robbed and the world is out to get you. It's predictable.

Sorry. There is no there there. bernie just had them recount KY-no change

She does have good manners.

Many of us Bernie supporters want to know.

The DLC crowd can't help but use it over and over.

I can understand why they THINK it--the base of the Democratic Party doesn't have the money to give in donations that corporate Democrats do, and we certainly can't match the back end bribes of high paying jobs as lobbyists, lawyers, and do nothing board members, nor can we make massive donations to pols foundations or presidential libraries.

But all that being said, they still need our votes, and the shaming and name-calling is more likely to depress turn out and make the election unnecessarily close than if they faked being progressive a little more convincingly.

Same old stuff....Make the liberal base the "fringe left."

You lot have built such a big wall around yourselves, nothing can tempt you out. You've backed yourselves into a corner and now you're stuck. Sanders won't be on the GE ballot, and the Hillary hate is just too strong to overcome, so there's Trump which many of you have already proclaimed is you preferred choice, or some outlier third party candidate, or not voting at all, which is still a vote for Trump. I don't envy your position.

Any worse than the fact that the loyalists to this party have saddled us with a person who is Pro-Big War, even endless wars that destroy the small nations like Libya and Syria where the military actions are supposed to help?

A person who is more for Visas for non-Americans to get the few remaining American jobs?

Who has no real plans to do good for the nation, just to continue her husband's legacy of "I'd have liked to enacted more progressive policies, but the damn republicans would not let me."


But because the DNC is bought and paid for (as is Clinton herself) the American public is saddled with this nightmare of Trump vs Hillary.

In addition to that, she probably cannot beat Trump. Due to the fact that to Sanders supporters, her positions are transparent. She is a neo con who loves Henry Kissinger and doesn't have a liberal bone in her body.

Had she been a person of integrity, it would have been easy for her to adopt Sanders' positions and convince us Sanders' supporters that she would indeed become a totally progressive President. But right now, she is seen as what she is: a neo con who has never met a Big Banker she didn't love, or a big Russian Business person she wasn't willing to do business with, regardless of the cost to real people in this country as well as in Russia.

Though I have talked to independents who back Bernie but would switch to Trump if it was him versus Hillary.

I could never vote for Trump for a lot of reasons, but primarily even if he said a couple of things I agree with, we have no way in hell of knowing what he will even try to do since he has never held political office, and until about five minutes ago, never collected any campaign donations.

No ones vote should be based on what anonymous commenters on a public forum say? You just admitted yours is. Pretty much proves the point that you, and in my opinion many Bernie voters are emotion based voters. No insulting comment by anyone on a website should effect a rational voters opinion. I do not really like either candidate, but both are better than a republican.

With everything you wrote, including the last line.

Which I thought they were (or GOP trolls) early in the Obama administration, until I heard the same "hippie punching" in almost identical words from Obama's press secretary and others in the admin.

Also, why shouldn't we demand more than that our candidates merely be five percent better than a party that is syphillitically insane?

Should you leave your kid with someone who is five percent a better parent than casey anthony?

You let comments here effect you vote.

Laughable man. Try turning down the emotions.

Your last 2 sentences were word salad. Syphilis and Casey Anthony? You have jumped the shark.

we should have as much right as New Hampshire, Iowa, etc.

Bernie said that he would be in this until the convention months ago. Why didn't people believe him?

Do you have a quote or a link?

I know some on DU have suggested he should drop out, but it seems most folks have no issue with him remaining in the race through June 14th.

is going to piss off a lot of people including Californians. She is not the nominee nor will be unless she has more delegates. We then go to convention to see about the crazy stupid super garbage to keep out grass roots movements....crap. just crap. (venting) Oh then we go to the convention and see how that turns out...

I have no problems with Bernie staying in till the 15th of June, but he needs to stop attacking the party. Also once Hillary reaches a pledged delegate majority (2026) game over. He knows very well that the super delegates are not going to switch over and support the 2nd place finisher. Didn't happen in 2008 and won't happen now

Everyone has the same say - but because it is a points race over time, it naturally means that votes taken at critical times have more of an effect on the final results.

As it happens, Clinton has an insurmountable lead. Everyone still has a say, but it's just that enough people have already had their say and they said "Clinton" that there aren't enough people who may say "Sanders" to make a difference.

Consider the alternative scenario where both candidates are tied neck and neck and putting all their efforts into the last races. Would it be fair that late voters get "more say" just because the race is close when it's their turn to vote?

Of course not. It's the nature of the game.

Just not as much of one if they went early. So much of it is on state parties. California set themselves up to be the kingmaker if it was close this primary. It isn't so their say is a bit more limited.

Every 1-2 months, 12-13 states would hold primaries. So, there would be 4 groupings. Each group would represent the various regions of the US and these groups would rotate each election.

All primaries. No caucuses, which suppress the vote.

No superdelegates.

3 days for voting, including a Saturday, so as to increase turnout. In other words, have the polls open Thursday through Saturday.

Let's just mail ballots to registered Democrats in every state and everyone mail back their ballot and then count all the ballots on the same day.

Good post.

we vote? Unless you are behind by more delegates than the state allocates. I'm sick of people thinking we shouldn't count.

This is like the straw man about how people need to stop claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Nobody is claiming that.

It's been evident since mid-March that Clinton will end up with a majority of pledged delegates. That in no way suggests California, Montana, New Jersey, DC and others shouldn't count.

The World by pulling out RIGHT NOW.

And the media does their bit too. But unless you spend time at Democracy Now or at Greg Palast's site, you don't get any of the truth:

http://gregpalast.com/media-fabricates-sanders-riot-buries-the-real-story

And I see the occasional call for him to drop out. I can point to far more posts on DU about how Clinton should not be the nominee (even posts saying she should drop out), about how she can't reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone (as if anyone has been arguing otherwise), and so on.

Of course, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with saying the remaining primaries shouldn't count or that people shouldn't vote in them. I don't see anyone suggesting anything of the sort, just as I don't see anyone suggesting that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. DU is littered with straw men.

After all, as Hillary Clinton pointed out in 2008, Bobby Kennedy.

For the rest, I support immediate loss of citizenship and deportation, with their assets being divided between the Clinton Foundation (75%) and the True Believers (5%). (The remaining 20% will be retained by the DNC for administrative overhead and processing charges.)

I know it seems a little harsh, but that's what Bill suggested when we talked a few minutes ago.

because of her damn emails....

The candidates should stay in until the primaries are over and until a nominee is officially confirmed.

It is called the primary season! Then we have conventions. Then we have the general election.

just as much as everyone else's who have voted before us. Uh, well we will see how many of us are suddenly republicans or 'other' on election day after being lifelong democrats. On second thought, nope, our votes probably will not be counted given the history of this fucking primary season.