Home | About | Donate

Emergency Lawsuit Highlights Voter Frustration with New York Primary Process


#29

The upside is Sanders now has reason to not endorse HRC if he loses. In fact if this is not fixed he should spell it out that his supporters will not cannot vote for a cheater.


#30

Primaries are not intended to be some kind of general election - they a uniquely USAn way that parties choose their candidates. Everywhere else in better-functioning democracies, only dues paying members of a party have any say over party leaders or candidates via comittee meetings or ballots mailed to party member’s homes.

Would you like it of representatives of Shell Oil could walk in and participate in selecting the leaders of Greenpeace? Then why should non-party members have a say in a party’s candidates? It is the open primaries that make no sense.


#31

Precisely because the USA is not a functioning democracy is why the open primary is the only way to go.
Besides this is obvious cheating by the DNC on behalf of Clinton.

In a functioning democracy those who cheat in an election would go to jail.


#32

Arizona and now NY! People, riot in the streets over this. People of color take note; the Clinton’s are not helping you, never have. Bernie supporters, it is now time to demand that justice be done; a quick ruling in this lawsuit.


#33

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#34

Sure hope the judge throws the full force of the law at the NY BOE!

Friend of mine is expecting major impediments/suppression in Ohio this November. Ohio judges may not follow NY precedents, but they do read the papers.


#35

The “open primary” is a symptom of the dysfunctional “cult of the individual” that characterizes US politics. Change does not happen by electing individuals, it happens through effective political party organizing which moves a specific ideological agenda forward. Getting Sanders on as the Democratic presidential candidate - and into the WH, wont do much by itself, the main benefit will be the possibility of the long-sought (since the DSA/Michael Harrington days) leftward realignment of the Democratic party.

A lot of the problems have to do with the fact that, thanks to the self-absorbing nature of the smartphone, young USAns are pretty much total clueless when it comes to organizing or the most rudimentary aspects of politics. Many don’t even know the difference between a congressional district and a precinct! And one kid was told by some crook that his registration would allow him to vote in any polling place in the state - and he believed it!


#37

I first learned of these exactly similar dirty-trick tactics during the McGovern/ Nixon campaign when I was Ward #1 Captain of 38 St. Louis precincts. As the campaign was sabotaged, we vowed to go underground and get Mr. Nixon, which we did.


#38

Whatever a primary is “intended” to accomplish it has very much to do with continued domination over our politics by just two parties - millions who choose to register whatever way they do unable to have their voices heard.
If there were more than the corrupt two we all would be very much better off.

The Shell Oil - Greenpeace analogy is frankly ridiculous. The reason all voters should have a say in nomination (not necessarily selecting) is that all are affected by those elected - the two-party system with no wider alternative is a mechanism of control/domination.

There is nothing wrong and everything right empowering voters having a voice in choosing candidates that affect everyone after election. Open primaries with independents able to chose affiliation on vote day should be the law, also same-day registration or party affiliation change - what we’ve seen this time around is voter disenfranchisement, electoral frauds, party heads tilting the playing field and a host of other manipulations. You think that reality is just fine?


#40

And you know what they’ll say, after Slickery “wins”:
“Oh, this is terrible you weren’t able to vote. We’ll investigate…and make sure to fix it so that
NEXT TIME (which is really never) it will all be straightened out” OR
"We did an investigation…and the results of the investigation (6 months or so later) is
we find no irregularities…sorry…it was the voter’s fault, after all…
If this isn’t a joke, I don’t know what is.
Just like Georgie W., they really don’t even try to hide it anymore. Their attitude is
tough…get over it…let’s move on…


#41

How’d you get Nixon? He “won”…
I am very interested to know, actually, if you could explain…
might help us with Bernie…


#42

Bliss:
I think I am going to plan to take days off from work to go to Philly, as I don’t live too far away
(New Jersey)…I think I would like to go there.
Thing is you have to plan for police barricades…I was part of a group that planned to storm
Madison Square Garden when Repubs. had convention in New York City: in 2004; we were penned off
by police, blocks away…couldn’t get anywhere near it…


#43

So this doesn’t just happen down South, huh? Election fraud is going to be a tougher sell in NYC, however. One of the many benefits of having a populist candidate like Sanders is to awaken the attention of the masses. People have been writing books about the American penchant for election fraud for many years. But there’s nothing like a good old personal experience with such to get the ball rolling on reform. And NYC will become the poster child for the need for reform . . . it’s apparently a gansta city after all.

There is absolutely no excuse why in an age where we can transport people all over the world using a fairly uniform system, that the “tech-savvy Americans” are operating their elections in this inept manner. But it certainly does allow for manipulation and outright corruption, so it has hung around for far too long. And when the lawsuits get busy gathering evidence, the blatancy of this corruption will be revealed to its astonishing extremes.

Regardless of who wins this season, the real winner will be the American people, who have been snookered for a long time about their election process. The devil’s in the details, all right. And the fact that a particular person has won by riding this tide will be telling, to say the least.


#45

Representaitives of Shell Oil could easily join Greenpeace.

Your primaries would make sense if all voters were allowed a preference system for party candidates on a single ballot paper. Vote 1 for Sanders, vote 2 for Cruz, vote 3 for Clinton etc etc from list of candidates whose party affiliations are also on the ballot paper. It would allow independents and Greens etc an equal chance.

As it stands, the present arrangement is ridiculous .


#46

Yes, that is exactly what they are saying about Arizona.


#47

No I want a syatem like the UK or Canada or Europe. In those places, selecting candidates is purely an internal function of the party - and the state completely stays out of political party affairs.


#48

No, you are confusing the “primaries” with general elections. And since the US elections are “first past the post” then there is no point for a preferential ballot-instant runoff scheme. Independents and Greens and “libertarians” and socialists etc…still participate in the elections - the general election. The primaries are the party-candidate selection process. Should Tories or Lib-Dems be allowed to participate in the election of the leader of the Labour Party? Would Corbyn ever have been elected had they been allowed to do so?


#49

You object to open primaries because of non-members’ voting influence. Yet voters are quite free to change party affiliations for a primary then to change back. There’s no blood oath involved. But when fraud becomes a big problem and it’s not being corrected, then open primaries act as a buffer against the type of fraud which includes changing a voter’s registration status. It’s still one person one vote.

Shell Oil is a private corporation, allowing very little say beyond their corporate hierarchy. But as individuals anyone working for Shell Oil, or any other organization, can participate in primaries. How else to obtain moral and legal legitimacy? Now a real boost for accuracy as well as legitimacy in our electoral process would be instant runoff elections. It gives more scope and voice to voters not only in the general elections but reduces the exaggerated influence that the primaries have with their special benefits bestowed to the keepers of the status quo. Leading to the standard…one from column A… one from column B situation. Imagine not having to worry about the ‘lesser of’ problem. Dangerous stuff, this democracy talk.


#50

I am beginning very slowly to undertand the utter farsical circus that is USAian “democracy”. So what is going on is that folk join a political party and then follows months of brouhaha around the nation whilst candidates seeking selection from the party obtain millions of dollars with which to slander each other, hold stuffed-shirt debates with each other in order to bore television audiences stupid and finally whoop it up with balloons and carrier pigeons and flags at some convention centre at which some delegates, appointed by god-knows-whom, vote for the final POTUS candidate, whilst outside the convention centre the rowdy and demonstrative supporters of of the less-successful candidates get beaten up by the local police. The USA explains why I remain a Monarchist and a supporter of a Constitutional Monarchy.

It would be so much easier if one had a general election for POTUS with anyone allowed to run as candidate, with preferential voting if one should so wish so as to ensure that the best party won the POTUSship. Or why not just give up and have a permanent head of state and a reasonably sane Pariament?


#53

You keep suggesting an instant runoff system, but in the US almost all political offices are elected by a “first past the post” plurality. So runoffs are not done - and there is instead a “spoiler” problem if you have lots of “reasonable” candidates diluting the opposition going against a big nasty bastard who is invariably representing a monolithic hard-right wing.

I’m not sure what a (purely ceremonial) monarch as to do with it, but certainly, we need to get rid of this overly powerful “Unitary Executive” that is characteristic of all countries in this hemisphere except Canada. Although, in their defense, most of the other countries require a majority, not a simple plurality like the US, requiring runoffs or instant runoffs as you suggest.

And yes, it is all high farce. These year-and-a-half long quadrennial extravaganzas that bury democracy have GOT to go!