New York has it right when it comes to their primary

[Cali_Democrat]

We need more closed primaries.

Independents and Republicans should not be choosing the Democratic nominee.

If you want to vote for a potential Democratic nominee, become a member of the party.

That isn't too much to ask.

[Lucinda]

1. Yep. There are VAST differences between the two parties.

If you can't find one more in line with your views, start your own. Otherwise, you will be left with having to make your selection between those selected by the parties you chose not to join.

[msongs]

2. just have a primary with 3 categories - dems, repubs and other/independent. btw the bernie crowd

can still vote for him in the general by WRITING HIM IN (NY election code 8-308) if he is not the dems nominee.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. i think you need us to win, and if you keep pushing us away like this the party will die off.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Obama lost Independents in 2012 and still won

We don't need you as much as you might think.

[msongs]

7. yes but "they" are so special they don't want to be bothered to register lol

[Viva_La_Revolution]

10. ummm. i'm a registered democrat. i joined to vote for him in 2008 and i stayed

But i am being shown the door, it seems.

[Kittycat]

5. 42% of the Electorate agree with you.

And what % of existing democrats and additional %of New Democrats that only signed on to support Bernie over the Untrustworthy, Hopeless and Uninspiring one.

[Hortensis]

14. Nonsense. You are not pushed away.

Anyone who lives in a state with a closed primary and failed to register as a Democrat before the deadline closed him or herself out -- of the primary only. Democrats will choose their candidate and offer their candidate to others for consideration.

As for very few those who choose to not vote for what they believe in, refusing to vote out of malice and resentment, will have disenfranchised themselves. And those who vote for a Republican for the same reason deserve to inherit the wind.

[firebrand80]

6. Anyone know if party registration is higher

in closed primary states?

[NorthCarolina]

8. It certainly doesn't help to grow the party. Quite the opposite.

Locking voters out of the process...yep, that's smart, and very Democratic.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Oregon has a closed primary and consistently high turnout, NY has a closed primary and habitually

abysmal turnout. I hope the turnout is higher this time for them.

[Codeine]

32. Doesn't Oregon have an all-mail voting system?

If so I think that high turnout speaks well of the efficacy of that kind of voting.

[silvershadow]

11. Except that Independents and Republicans vote in the general. Who started this "party" system

anyway?

[Cali_Democrat]

13. You're not familiar with political parties? They are not unique to the United States

and they've been around for centuries.

I'm sure you can find more information on the interwebz.

[silvershadow]

15. Rhetorical. My point stands. nt

[apnu]

19. No it doesn't it shows a lack of understanding what primaries are.

And how American politics work.

Your point confuses national voting day on November 8th with the nominating process of the political parties in America. That is the day the "will of the people" speak.

You seem to think they are a national affair, as in Constitutionally sanctioned or demanded or part of the official process. They aren't. It doesn't matter how a nominee is place on the ballot, its up to the states to have those rules. And, for the most part, the only thing people need to do to qualify to be on the ballot is achieve a certain amount of signatures in that state. There are no other rules or regulations.

[silvershadow]

24. No, I understand perfectly well how it all works. I also understand that the strongest candidate

will win by getting Republican votes as well as from Democrats. I understand that candidate is Bernie Sanders. I also understand that the party system willfully and wantonly shut out minor parties and unaffiliated voters, who will then go on an be begged for a vote in the general election.

PS: I didn't read your post, just the arrogant headline.

[apnu]

25. wow, check yourself before you wreck yourself.

[apnu]

27. not snide, the truth.

You showed no understanding of the process, and then when I explained it, you called me arrogant?

Look in the mirror, real hard. See that chip? Yeah, that's on you.

I don't give a shit really. Its people like you that drag Bernie down. Its a damn shame.

[silvershadow]

29. No, as I explained previously to you, my comment was rhetorical.

I never imagined anyone would be dumb enough to bite.

[TCJ70]

12. Do you know the cutoff dates for registration?

I read somewhere (not here) that it was a long time ago. That seems not right to me.

[slipslidingaway]

21. October 9th, before the first Dem debate, was the date to change party affiliation ...

new voters could register by March 25th.

The deadline to register for a party in NJ is TODAY!!!

http://voteforbernie.org/

"In New Jersey, you must be affiliated as a democrat by Wed, April 13 (today!), which is before the registration deadline!

You must be registered by Tue, May 17."

[TCJ70]

28. That seems wildly stupid...

...a cutoff date before any national introduction of candidates in a debate? No one should applaud that.

[slipslidingaway]

31. Exactly and that is a reason people were not happy when the DNC scheduled the first debate ...

9 weeks after the first Repub debate and why O'Malley and Sanders called for additional debates back in August 2015.



"...a cutoff date before any national introduction of candidates in a debate? No one should applaud that."

But many did

One person in NY told me last night he only recently heard of Sanders, many people are not paying as much attention to politics, not to mention all the deadlines.

[Codeine]

33. To me not being a registered Democrat is "wildly stupid." nt

[TCJ70]

35. Then there should be every opportunity to switch...

...all the way up to Election Day.

[Codeine]

36. I disagree. Stupid should be painful.

It's how people learn.

[apnu]

16. I agree. +1 for you.

Closed primaries require the voter to be active in the small stuff and be aware. They can't swoop in on "the day" throw a vote down and walk away thinking they actually did something that took effort.

America is at its best when all the people are involved in their politics and are conversion about things on the small and local levels.

[hellofromreddit]

17. If you want to vote in a Christian nation, become a member of the Church.

That isn't too much to ask.

[hrmjustin]

18. Independents are warned in NY that you can't vote in primaries.

Their choice and we are not changing the rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. The 2014 midterms, NY was in the bottom three for turnout along with Texas and Indiana....

Oregon has a closed primary but we don't exclude people by having deadlines in the prior year and that sort of crapola. Whatever NY is doing that keeps turnout so low is not good for anyone, no matter how you slice it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. And we ask that you pay for the election yourself

it is a private function, No more state administration of your election. Agreed.

[NWCorona]

22. Touché!

[NWCorona]

23. Bernie will win NY!

[B Calm]

34. I don't think this is a very liberal idea. Limited political freedom

is right-wing authoritarian point of view!

[Jim Lane]

37. New York has it WRONG when it comes to the deadlines

I can see arguments on each side concerning closed primaries. New York is unique, however, in HOW closed they are. The deadline for changing parties was last October 9.

If you're OK with a deadline six months in advance, consider this: The primaries for state legislative seats will be in September 2016, and had the same October 2015 deadline for changing affiliation.

It's not a matter of people being stupid. Consider instead that not everyone is a politics junkie like the average DUer. Some people chose to be unaffiliated because they felt alienated from all the parties, until they watched the first debate (which was after the October 9 deadline) and were galvanized by Sanders. The same is true for some people registered Green or Working Families. On the Clinton side, I'm sure she has some supporters who are registered Republicans but who, last fall, after years of growing unease, watched the Republican debates or heard the Republicans' attacks on Clinton, and finally decided to follow Lincoln Chafee across the aisle.

It's one thing to have a rule that blocks people from playing games by deliberately voting for the other party's weaker candidate. It's quite another to say that people like those I've described above must wait several months before voting in the Presidential primary, and must wait nearly a year before voting in other primaries. (By the way, unless the law is changed, October 2016 will be the deadline for changing registration if you want to vote in September 2017 in primaries for local offices, notably Mayor of New York.)

We might as well say that no one can vote in the primary unless they submit a 250-word essay on "Why I Would Make a Good Democrat", along with letters of reference from two currently enrolled Democrats. That'll show those game-players!

[Cheese Sandwich]

38. Then you should have same day registration because making people register 6 months ahead is

locking a lot of people out from participating in the primaries.

In the US the primaries are functionally the first round of voting for the general election, where the candidates are narrowed down to two. Requiring people to register 6 months ahead of time is highly anti-democratic. It's voter suppression designed to manipulate the outcome by ensuring only certain types of people vote in the first round.

A lot of people don't want that D next to their name in the registration because their boss could look it up in the public voter rolls and they could loose their job if the boss is a shithead Republican. True story. That has actually happened and it's totally legal.

[Fawke Em]

39. No.