Here is why the BSER'S are all claiming fraud in Arizona...

[liberal N proud]

Election officials said the long lines were due, in part, to a large number of unaffiliated or independent voters trying to vote. Only those registered with one of the recognized parties were allowed to cast ballots. The state's Republican governor, Doug Ducey, issued a statement Wednesday morning calling the situation "unacceptable" and called for allowing independents to be able to vote in presidential primaries.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/arizona-primary-long-lines-voting-restrictions



They didn't think rules applied to them!

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I think the rules should be changed, though not in the middle of an election.

People could have changed their affiliation if they planned ahead.

[SciFiRK]

3. Many are saying they did change their registration

and when they went to the polls with a new ID card in hand, the computers did not recognize the change.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Their problem is with the local Republican politicians that run the election.

And with a Conservative Supreme Court that allows the rules to change without approval.

[yallerdawg]

12. Anyone not recognized as a registered Democrat...

was given a provisional ballot and in many cases were found to not be registered Democrats.

Independents choose not to be involved in party politics or alignment. Why should they get to choose a party nominee?

Each state has its own primary rules and history. In Republican states, we know they tamper with ease and access to voting! This is an Arizona issue. Arizonans should deal with it.

[LiberalFighter]

20. I agree.

The primaries are intended for Democrats to determine the candidate they will have placed into nomination for the general election. If someone doesn't support a political party they shouldn't get to vote in those elections.

[JohnnyRingo]

29. That's how it works here in Ohio as well, and it makes great sense.

If someone claims to be an Independent they can only vote on issues as there were no candidates running on that platform. Besides the Rs & Ds, only the Green Party had a candidate on the ballot here, and had no other contenders to choose from.

Every primary year we have voters who don't like to disclose their party affiliation. They feel it's none of our business and try registering as an Indy. They quickly lose that non-partisanship when they find out they can't influence party politics. Some thought they could vote for who they wanted in both parties.

I'm not sure how it works in Arizona, but here we can change our party preference on the spot. If the voters in AZ had to preregister, then had to accept that ballot on Super Tuesday it may not be right, but it also should be a wake up call to educate one's self before taking on such a weighty responsibility as electing our nation's leaders.

[stopbush]

13. Many are saying = lying to save embarrassment

that they couldn't be bothered to learn the rules of their state primary and make the change a year ago as required.

Always the victim of the evil establishment. Never the victim of ones own stupidity.

[stopbush]

22. Then they need to document the proof that they received a new ID card.

I'll believe it when I see it. Claiming you had a new ID card isn't proof.

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. changing voter registration is handled by elected Republican officials.

They are reslonsible.

[liberal N proud]

4. You have to play by the rules set out at the beginning of the contest

If they are not acceptable, then you go through proper channels to change them before the next election.

Stop complaining it's not fair just because your horse didn't come in first.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Which was exactly what I said.

State rules did not allow independents to vote in the primary. I think they should be changed before 2020.

I think the California Primary model is great, though I would change that to mail in voting for all.

[stopbush]

23. If Sanders had elected to run as a Green or under some other independent label

the Indies wouldn't have been able to vote for him either. There is no such thing as "The Independent Party" in this country. Unless you opt to affiliate with an actual political party, you don't get to vote in closed primaries.

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. In some states, independents or decline to state voters are allowed to vote in primaries.

Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)

In many they are not.

I think it is good to allow those who do not opt to be a party member to vote in the primary. It has worked well for Democrats in Califirnia. It is too late to change the rules now.

[stopbush]

34. Yeah. That's called an open primary.

Open primaries are a bad idea.

[Agnosticsherbet]

35. I don't agree.

I would like to see all states move to them once this election is over. I also think that Caucuses should be abolished because they discourage heavy turnout.

[stopbush]

36. Are yu registered as an Independent?

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. No, I'm a registered Democrat. I think we should encourage maximum participation of voters.

It has worked well in California. We went from Republican dominated government to a Democratic dominated government.

At this time, it looks like both the candidates for US Senate will be Democrats.

Disclaimer: I support Clinton for President.

[stopbush]

39. I live in SoCal.

As you know, the Rs only dominated CA as an obstructionist minority. What has changed is that the Ds now have an unassailable majority in the legislature.

[Agnosticsherbet]

42. The primary system allowed that to happen.

It was a pleasant surprise to me.

[stopbush]

48. Do you think Rs should have a say in picking the D nominee?

[Agnosticsherbet]

49. I think the number of R's that would cross over is relatively small.

It would be worth some annoyance to increase voter turn out.

[stopbush]

50. That's not what I asked.

It's a simple yes or no question. Care to try again?

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. You did not read what I wrote. Try again. Increasing voter participation is worth the annoyance

of a few Republicans who would vote for a Democrat rather an a Republican.

[stopbush]

52. Would thousands of Rs voting in a D contest be worth the annoyance?

How about tens of thousands?

If you're OK with the principle of open primaries, why would you condition your approval on only a few Rs voting in a D primary?

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. Thousands of Republicans are not going to vote'

It has been suggest by idiots like Limbaugh, but they are not going to cross over in enough number to make any real difference.

Increasing participation in our system is good for little "d" democracy and big "D" Democrats.

[stopbush]

55. Still didn't answer the question.

You won't answer because you know that the follow-up question is "are you OK with thousands of Independents voting in D primaries?" No doubt you are OK with that, because for some reason you believe that Indy voters are not as unwanted as would be R voters.

As a lifelong D, I have no more respect for Indies than I do for Rs, and I certainly will not delude myself to believe that an Indy voter will do what's good for the D Party anymore than would a Republican.

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. I answered the quesion. You don't like my answer.

I don't get "unwanted voters." It is in our interest to broaden participation in our system. The Democratic Party (big 'D&quot , and little 'd' democracy, work best with a big tent philosophy. The more people involved the better the result and the better the government.

[stopbush]

57. The Ds big tent policy in primaries should be limited

to those who are registered members of that big tent.

Unfortunately, the political parties don't control the kind of primary held in a particular state. The State governments do.

[LisaM]

40. We have all mail voting and I don't like it.

I've learned in the last few election cycles that Washington has tens of thousands of spoiled ballots each election and there's no way to fix them. I also don't like having to pay to vote, I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong. Also, in Washington, turnout has actually declined under this system.

[Agnosticsherbet]

41. I had not heard that.

How do you pay to vote?

[LisaM]

43. You have to pay for the stamp to mail it - not a huge amount

but it's still paying. They have four - four! - drop in boxes in Seattle, scattered very widely, so in most cases you'd have to drive or take a bus to get to them.

[Agnosticsherbet]

44. Someone should go to the State assembly and require that the envelopes have postage prepaid.

Or take them to court and say that a stamp is a poll tax and, therefore, unconstitutional.

[LisaM]

46. They should, and they should also make it easier to find out about spoiled ballots.

If people knew how many weren't being counted, I think they'd be upset.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. I disagree. I think Dems should nominate our candidate, and Repubs should nominate theirs.

"Independents" are the reason we wind up with the clusterf*ck we're currently dealing with. They split their tickets. They throw these forces together that are diametrically opposed to one another, and say "now go work together". History has shown us that crap doesn't work. So, my preference would be that if they're pissed off enough to go change their party registration from Dem to Indie, then screw them, they shouldn't be able to muck around in our nominating process.

[SharonClark]

45. K&R

[BlueCaliDem]

47. K&R! ^^^This!^^^

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

[DemonGoddess]

53. Agree wholeheartedly!

Thank you!!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. "Until 2013, the Grand Canyon State was one of 16 states required to clear all changes to voting law

and procedures with the US Department of Justice, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because of its history of discriminatory and racist election practices. The two-part formula used to determine which jurisdictions would fall under the Department of Justice's review process was created nearly 50 years before in 1965 and attempted to insure that the voting-age population actually was able to vote. The first criteria was if a jurisdiction had a "test or device" that restricted the opportunity to register to vote on November 1, 1964. The state would also be scrutinized if less than half of voting-age people in a jurisdiction were registered to vote, or if less than half of the voting-age population actually did vote in the presidential election of November 1964."

This is also laid at the feet of the Conservative Supreme Court.

[LuvLoogie]

7. I think all party primaries should be closed. Pick a side, register

then you get a say in who that party nominates. No crossover subterfuge. No asocial nihilists.

[stopbush]

14. Agreed.

Imagine the poutrage if Bernie was running in a contested open primary for an Independent party and Ds and Rs crossed over to vote for his opponent.

[katmille]

16. Did you just coin that word

"poutrage"? Or am I just behind the times? At any rate, I love it! May I use it?

[stopbush]

19. I can't claim to have coined it. Feel free to use it.

[DemonGoddess]

15. Agreed!

I also think that change in affiliation to vote in closed primaries shouldn't be any shorter of a time period than 90 days. Not the day of the vote, or even a month before.

[LiberalFighter]

21. I think New York is 5 months to change political registration.

They might allow new registrations to go through anytime. Not sure.

[SaschaHM]

24. From what I've read,

the deadline for new voters to register is today. Registered voters also can't change affiliation and vote in their party's primary in the same year. Taking this into account, I find most predictions that Bernie can take NY to be complete hogwash.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. THANK!!!!!!!! YOU!!!!!!!!!!! And no running on our ticket just for access and mailing lists.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Posted to for later. eom.

[MSMITH33156]

9. The long lines were ridiculous

but the result of Republican leadership trying to disenfranchise people. They did the same thing in Florida, 2008 was a smooth election with a lot of early voting to alleviate congestion.

But a lot of voting helps Democrats, so they closed polling places and reduced the early voting hours. The result was people waiting in line all day and night to vote. Fortunately, most people stayed in even after finding out that Obama had won, so he was able to eke out a win in Florida.

But this whole thing is intentional. High turnout hurts them, so they do everything they can to limit turnout.

This was no accident, it is Republican policy to make it as difficult as possible for people to vote. As far as independents showing up when they couldn't vote, that's on them, but it wouldn't have created a mess had the same number of polling places that had been in place in 2012 were here in 2016. Here is the key:

One reason for the long lines is the fact that the county went from 200 polling locations in 2012 to just 60 in 2016. As Republic reporter Caitlin McGlade noted Tuesday night, Maricopa County's 60 polling locations worked out to about one for every 20,833 eligible voters, compared with one polling station serving 2,500 voters in other Arizona counties.

Keep that in mind. In 2012, they had 200 locations, with only a Republican primary. They wanted to make sure their people could vote. In 2016, with both parties holding primaries, they decided to shrink the locations. There were 10 times the number of people at every location. So those 4 hour waits people were complaining about would have been 25 minutes. Problem solved.

I'm glad Bernie is causing a stink, because hopefully it pays off in the general election with more scrutiny on them.

But it should also be pointed out that this probably hurt Hillary more than Bernie. This is a county that she won by more than she won statewide. It certainly didn't substantially hurt Bernie to the point where it would have made a difference, which is why some of his supporters (not him, of course) claiming that the result is in doubt is absolutely insane. You don't get 80k votes out of this nonsense, you probably don't get any substantive difference in percentage and delegate allocation.

But this is a huge WARNING for the general election. In primaries, it's hard to target counties/precincts because Democratic friendly areas vote for both candidates. But in general elections, they intentionally generate congestion in Democratic areas. Arizona looks to be in play, and no doubt they'll try a repeat performance here.

[2naSalit]

10. Interesting... I saw the State's

Sec of State or whatever the title is for that woman who blew it and is responsible for election polling places and oversight on RMS last night. The woman is a professional antifeminist... that's how I would describe an older woman who has obviously spent her life doing as directed by men and then defending herself and deeds conducted by order of men by feigning ignorance but with an air expressing professional competence. I think this Arizona problem is just one of the deliberate changes resulting from the death of Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act. I don't blame either D candidate for what took place, this was contrived by the RW cabal and has been in planning for some time.

I remember when the Voting Rights Act was ratified, and the Civil Rights Act and many other progressive legislative moves and how they came to be... I find the current event truly disturbing and indicative of the decline of a democracy which will, in turn, dismantle our republic in the ugliest of ways.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Hold on here just a minute, do you know this lady? If you don't know her then don't jump to

judgement? Are you controlled by men?

[pandr32]

11. Too bad they didn't separate lines

It is a shame hat registered voters had to stand in extra-long and slow lines thanks to the efforts of voter suppression--so many polling places cut. Indies and unaffiliated voters should have been greeted with large signs explaining that they are not allowed to vote, and a voter registration line should have been separate. Even though they couldn't vote they should still have been allowed to register--we need to register voters at every opportunity.

[LannyDeVaney]

18. Exactly ...

and this was being reported way before the polls closed - I consider the independents who held up the lines to be suppressing the vote.

[charlyvi]

25. I'm surprised Bernie or this people didn't make the rules clear before the vote.

But, then again, why waste yet another victimhood narrative. So I guess I'm not surprised after all.

[liberal N proud]

28. Nailed it!

[sweetloukillbot]

30. There were people who didn't understand the rules...

But there were also registration fuck-ups in Maricopa County. I know two people whose registration was messed up - one of whom had her new registration card and the receipt from when she changed it 2 weeks before the deadline, and she was still not found in the system. When she spoke to the Recorder's office on Monday, they had her listed under her maiden name from 15 years ago but told her everything was corrected now. It wasn't when she got to the polling place.

But there were a lot of people who didn't know the rules, the messed up registrations and long lines were only in Maricopa County, people in Flagstaff and Tucson were reporting on people being turned away because they didn't know they had to register in advance. And they didnt have any lines.

THe line I was in had a lot of Berners, a lot of Hillary voters, but it was mostly Republicans it seemed like. Indeed, the Bernie voters were the ones most emphatic about staying in line and making sure they didn't get disenfranchised.

It was a colossal fuck up on multiple levels, and even as an ardent Hillary supporter I'm not going to completely discount some of the Bernie voters' concerns.

[DesertRat]

33. Trump held a rally which drew over 20,000 people

here in Maricopa County, 3 days before the election. I'm sure that many of them were among the unaffiliated/unregistered/registered Independents who were backing up the lines demanding to vote.

[CajunBlazer]

37. The Governor of Arizona is a known Republican idiot...

..... who would love to see Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee.

If a citizen isn't a member of a political party why should they get a vote in who that party nominates. That's like not being a member of a club and deciding that you would like a say in the election of the clubs officers. That's BS.

In addition, if someone has not taken the time in advance to learn the rules of a primary and/or in which precinct they should vote, I don't like their chances of knowing enough about the candidates to vote intelligently.