In the primary. Just saying.
In other news …
So to clarify the issue, Galvin’s office sent out letters to about 21,000 voters enrolled in the United Independent Party in late January, informing them they may have signed up incorrectly.
“I am concerned that people are going to lose their right to make a meaningful choice in this presidential primary,” Galvin said.
About 5,500 people have switched from the United Independent Party to unenrolled as of Tuesday morning, Galvin said.
Wow, confusion over having Independent in a party’s name! No one could have predicted this.
Please share widely!
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
Under what authority did Galvin send this letter?
It should have been none of his business. Why is Galvin campaigning to get people enrolled as D’s and R’s on the public dime?
Pablo says
Otherwise 5500 voters would have been disenfranchised by Evan Falchuk and the ballot line he bought in 2014.
jconway says
full disclosure, working full time for the United Independent Party and that’s for every comment in this thread
Over 60,000 Massachusetts voters put the United Independent Party on the ballot line by voting for Evan Falchuk for governor. McCormick spent a ton of money and got nowhere since he was a lousy candidate, the Greens are on the ballot and nobody is attacking them or mailing postcards to their voters.
21,000 registered at a pace of 2,000 a month for 14 months. Since the start of the party we have been upfront that you would lose eligibility staying in it and have actually sent emails. Our facebook page is updated for the umpteenth time with this request today.
Christopher says
…especially thinking that they were just registering as an independent, they won’t be able to vote in the primary because I’m pretty sure y’all don’t have a presidential primary.
jconway says
Do you have proof those people exist? Galvin doesn’t. He mentioned thousands in one piece and produced a dozen emails on the Herald. We have been constantly updating every single person who has registered with us about this problem, we embraced the postcards even though they pissed many of our members off who thought they were condescending, and it’s something we have been mentioning in interviews in all media since the party became official.
Sam Tracy who is a BMGer has been tweeting about this and pointing out how he has received pledges from many people to switch after March 1st. I’ve been telling all my friends and family to switch after March 1st. I am the field director and I am switching after March 1st, as is our communications director who is currently unenrolled.
I have contacted and been contacted by city clerks offices and confirmed they have no cases either. Some from large cities and one from a small town, I got one from Western MA, one from a densely populated Boston adjacent suburb, and one form the south shore. All confirmed this.
If you call the party hotline to talk to someone it gets rerouted to my cell phone. In four weeks on the job I’ve had zero complaints about this, ten about Galvin’s postcard, and 5 people who confirmed they are unenrolling but will come back.
It’s not rocket science. Treat voters like adults and assume they are intelligent, instead of assuming they are lemmings to be misled like Secretary Galvin. I’ve never encountered more cynicism from a public official who should be committed to promoting voting and civic engagement. His office was great to work with, as are the clerks, but this is a fictitious problem.
centralmassdad says
.
jconway says
?
Christopher says
It is very logical that someone might have made this mistake and Galvin is doing his due diligence to make sure it wasn’t a mistake. If it were not a mistake the voter is free to ignore Galvin’s communication.
JimC says
How do you account for the reported 5,500 switches?
With all respect, jc, this gets to the heart of my issue with UIP. If they had called it “No Labels” or “Third Way” or even “Both Sides Do It,” or better yet something like Working People’s Party, at least we’d know where they stand. Use of the word “independent” (not your call, I know) was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters.
centralmassdad says
is a fraud
centralmassdad says
a thieving, corrupt fraud.
jconway says
Can only Democrats believe in democracy? Can only Republicans believe in the republic? Can only Greens be environmentalists?
There hadn’t been an independent designation on the ballot in over a decade when this party name was proposed. It was proposed because our founder looked at the electorate and saw 54% of voters without a party and also attract disaffected Democrats and Republicans as well. Political scientists confirmed that we took evenly from both parties in 2014.
The other idea is to organize the unenrolleds and disaffecteds into a new movement and to ensure that other 54%, the number of uncontested state legislative elections, can drop down to 0. In that way we are good democrats too. And since we want a more representative legislature, good bicameral republicans. The main idea is to attract smart, independent thinkers who want to serve in government and feel shut out of the traditional political ladder in both parties. I am particularly keen on getting women of color a shot, since recent special elections have shown it’s a glass ceiling at the Democratic primary level that won’t be cracked.
I think any name we picked would’ve ruffled a feather. I wish the Secretary of State would follow his staff and his own postcard and clarify these terms rather than use them interchangeably in interviews.
JimC says
That would be better.
Sorry but “independent” (though not owned) is the popular term. I don’t know why we say “unenrolled,” but the reason is probably statutory.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to my Judean People’s Front meeting. Last time I got lost and ended up at the People’s Front of Judea meeting …
jconway says
I wish the MA Pirate Party didn’t already have an awesome name and logo. They aren’t bad people either, though very single issue in my experience with them.
And yes, that scene in MP: LOB really satirized the left in the most perfect way. Still ongoing as well. My friends father won’t vote for Bernie because he isn’t a Socialist Equality Party member like he has been for six decades, and social democrats are ‘champagne socialists’ anyway.
Christopher says
…precisely BECAUSE there have been “Independent” parties in the past, so QED.
jconway says
So it was a problem that was already solved in the past that shouldn’t be a confusing controversy now. Got it.
Christopher says
Just call yourself the United People’s Party or something and avoid this altogether.
jconway says
That logic goes both ways. If one can change the law to dictate our party’s name one could also change it to enable any member of any party to vote in any presidential primary. One of the women who called our office yesterday was a Democrat who wanted to vote in the Republican primary and didn’t realize she has to switch to unenrolled. My dad didn’t realize this either and I was willing to switch him online so he could vote for Kasich to block Trump but he decided against it.
Or at least removing the arbitrary waiting period. If we are moving to same day registration and eventually automatic registration it should be just as easy for someone to switch parties right before voting and switch back. Considering the state ends up running these primaries on behalf of the parties they theoretically should maximize potential voter participation by naming the process as easy as possible for a given voter.
I can understand why a party might prefer a closed primary, and I’ve defended that concept in the past on the Dem side, but then it would make sense for the party to conduct its own election rather than the state. Labour had its leadership vote online which seems like the way to go if you want a closed primary.
jconway says
Many told us they were glad there was finally an “independent” party and the terms have meant different things long enough in Massachusetts for most voters to know the difference. The social media response to Galvin has been overwhelmingly an affirmation of why our voters deliberately choose our party and what it means tk them.
The town clerks I’ve talked to said it hasn’t been an issue, and so far no one has called our office to complain about losing the opportunity to vote in the primary. I acknowledged in the article and will admit it now that it’s clearly a possibility, but it’s also possible that someone could have signed up for another party without realizing how the primary rules work regarding unenrolled vs. being enrolled.
I had to correct many people who are enrolling in the Democratic Party to vote for Bernie that this is a step they didn’t need to take if they were already unenrolled. We can disagree about whether this terminology is appropriate or not, and if you feel it’s an issue than ask your lefislator to change the law. We welcome that conversation. But it would be nice frankly if the Secretary had sent that postcard to every voter in Massachusetts or mentioned the issue in one of the three ads he is currently running on television. Whether our party exists or not this issue is something some voters are confused by and unfamiliar with, particularly the deadlines 20 days before and the need to unenroll from any party to be able to have a choice to choose a ballot from either primary.
Pablo says
I doubt you will have many people complaining until March 1, when the friendly neighborhood poll worker refuses to give folks a ballot because they are enrolled in the United Falchuk Party.
SomervilleTom says
I have no doubt that there will be a few complaints.
I’ll wager you a drink at our next Stammtisch on the following:
1. There will be at least ten times as many complaints about improper handling handling of ballots for other reasons, and
2. None of those complaints will be mentioned by Mr. Galvin’s office or any news media, and
3. None of those other complaints will be mentioned here
For example, my town (and, I think each of the 351 cities and towns in the state) distributes an annual “census”, and that census is accompanied by a letter that states that if I fail to return it or if I screw it up, I and the members of my household will be removed from the voter rolls. My town has already gotten confused by the number of people who have lived at this address (we’ve only lived here a few years, and we have various children with various surnames moving in and out).
I’m pretty sure that snafus about such matters routinely cause friendly neighborhood poll workers to refuse to give folks — who are otherwise qualified to vote — a ballot.
I don’t know the relevant law (perhaps someone who does can enlighten us), but I hope that any voter refused a ballot for any reason can pull a provisional ballot so that such questions can be eventually resolved with a minimum of rancor.
I think this tempest in a teapot is motivated by politics, and not by any significant concern about disenfranchising ANY voter.
The fact is that a LOT of Massachusetts Democrats are exceedingly unhappy with our allegedly Democratic party. I suggest that that fact is why some Massachusetts Democrats are prickly and defensive about the UIP.
Christopher says
…they are no longer independent. They have a platform and a set of candidates to support like any other party, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
jconway says
By definition? They seemed to hold a fairly democratic vote up in New Hampshire yesterday. They arguably held a more democratic caucus than the Democrats did.
Christopher says
Independent means free from connections. Democratic and Republican have much deeper roots which everyone understands differ from their non-capitalized counterparts. For example, I have often identified as a capital-D Democrat, but a small-r republican.
jconway says
What would you call it? The Secretary of State had no problem with the name when we had 1,700 members after one month, no problem with the 2,000 a month registration figure which have been consistent and are the direct result of our voter drives and engagement strategies. Suddenly we cross the 21,000 mark and it’s a spike and all those voters will be accidentally disenfranchised. I’ve had conversations with four clerks in cities of varying size who confirmed they’ve encountered zero problems.
It’s also not the Independent Party but the United Independent Party which is a clear as day modifier indicating a group of people uniting for a party. A Social Democratic Party or People’s Republican Party would arguably be illegal under your definition which favors the two establishment parties at the expense of any upstarts. Which is fine, just admit that’s what you, Pablo and TBD want. The supermajority to keep chugging without a challenge. It clearly works for the three of you, it doesn’t for the vast majority of MA voters.
TheBestDefense says
Sorry jconway but comments about me wanting only two parties is distinctly contrary to what I have long argued. I have repeatedly said that I object to the two major parties having a legally protected exclusive use of the words “Democratic” or “Republican” in their titles. You repeatedly uprated christopher when he defended the monopolistic claim that I opposoed, and now you are failing miserably at trying to pin it on me.
But since you are faking claims about what I think, let me further clarify my thinking on the subject of political party participation. I think it is a morally corrupt practice for UIP to ask its members to participate in another party’s primary. I have no problem with unenrolleds voting in any party primary they want. I think it is politically corrupt to have a political party tell its members to change their affiliation so they can mess around in another party’s primary.
Is this the UIP version of independence? Nice, real nice.
JimC says
THIS is the issue.
If Republicans told their members to vote in “our” primary, we would not be happy. So why do we accept UIP doing it?
jconway says
Are we misleading and disenfranchising voters and taking away their right to vote in the presidential primaries because we are a fake party or nefariously encouraging our members to manipulate the results of other primaries? Gotta pick one conspiracy theory and run with it, these two don’t work together.
TheBestDefense says
Naww you just wanted a job in politics and decided that joining a doomed party was a way in. Sorry. See upstream..
Christopher says
…they are no longer free from connections. I understand that people really paying attention understand that United Independent really is a party, but given how little attention is often paid by voters I can’t bring myself to have faith that everyone does.
centralmassdad says
that they pay more attention than you do.
Christopher says
It’s rather difficult to pay more attention to politics than I do if I do say so myself.
centralmassdad says
And more time in reality would be a start
petr says
… you think it is “none of his business” for the Secretary of State to clarify peoples choices? Sounds to me like exactly his business.
I don’t see anywhere he’s advocating either D or R, or only D and/or R. The excerpt makes note of the fact that people who may have signed up as UIP thinking “independent” meant “unenrolled” are now without much excuse if they show up at the primary and can’t get a ballot….
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
… And Galvin clarified available choices to UIP party members? As in “better choose something else”?
… As in “your choice should be Democrat or Republican” ?
Pablo says
More like, if you wanted to be an independent voter with out a party affiliation, you made a mistake. Instead of being an independent or unenrolled voter, you registered as a member of the United Independent Party. This means you are ineligible to vote in the Democratic or Republican Party. If this is not your intent, you have until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 10 to change your registration to unenrolled.
jconway says
And reminded people today on social media and in an email blast.
We are not hiding anything, we want everyone who wants to vote to vote.
Careful petr. There is no such thing as independent in Massachusetts voter registration. The United Independent Party is clearly marked as a party on the form, unenrolled is clearly marked as no party on the form. There is no designation called ‘independent’ in this state. It’s a common mistake petr and I don’t fault you for making it. I do fault a secretary who has had over 25 years of unopposed rule over his department including it’s $7 million voter information budget (largely spent on self promoting ads) routinely making this mistake in his interviews. He easily could have added this in one of his three ads about online voting, and choose not to.
petr says
… or Reginald… 0r Snuffleupagaous… For Pete’s sake, using the wrong characterization could lead to confusion. One might be tempted to think you’re responding to me and not Pablo.
Keep doing that and your party might peter out… Pablo be something you could Seymour if it wasn’t so Claudia out. Go ahead, Oscar.
jconway says
It’s a pretty pedantic discussion, glad you agree most voters are smart enough to tell the difference.
Pablo says
<img src ="https://wilmingtonmaapple.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/urgent-voting-information.jpg?w=798" width=550"
jconway says
And it used language strikingly similar to the emails we had been sending out to our supporters for months.
JimC says
In your opinion, what percentage of switches to unenrolled would prove the validity of Galvin’s action?
Is it higher than 25%? The link in the diary says 5,500 — 25% of the people who got letters.
jconway says
Since we have been sending emails and letters with identical language long before he did to our own supporters. To my knowledge, we are the only third party asking its supporters to unenroll and then re-enroll for purposes of voting in the presidential primaries. The Greens aren’t doing that for their supporters who might support Bernie. Nor were they contacted by the secretary of state’s office. But I recognize the potential for confusion, it surprises me the Secretary of State didn’t jump on this until a week before the deadline.
But 5,500 is lower than what I expected. I was assuming we’d lose a lot more since the Massachusetts primary could still be quite competitive in both national parties.
Pablo says
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
Thanks for posting that. I was curious what was in that mailing.
Peter Porcupine says
What was the need to highlight ‘minor’ in describing the party? I know their Lt Gov candidate and nothing minor about her!
jconway says
Tracy Post ran with Jeff McCormick not Evan Falchuk, if that’s who you were referring to.
I completely agree about the ‘minor’. If we were so minor he wouldn’t have had to send out this mailer, no?
petr says
… your party wasn’t so minor you might have a candidate on a ballot somewhere in the CommonWealth…
…and, then, anybody presenting themselves at a polling place as a member of the UIP would be able to cast a vote because there would be a UIP ballot.
There are only D’s and R’s to vote for…. If there were others to vote for rhey would be on the ballot…. but there are not. The only people allowed to vote for D’s and R’s are D’s, R’s and unenrolled. UIP party members are not allowed to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary. If it makes you feel any better D’s and R’s are similarly not allowed to vote in a UIP primary.
jconway says
There will be candidates on the ballot in some districts come the September primary and November general election. That is the main reason we want our members to come back after March 1st to participate in those races where there will be UIP choices to choose from. And there will be statewide options come 2018 assuming we maintain our ballot access.
The presidential primary race is a unique opportunity to vote in a competitive election where the Massachusetts vote theoretically matters in either national party’s nominating contest. It was very important our registered voters had a say in this process despite the UIP not having a candidate and we took our educating role very seriously for that.
TheBestDefense says
Angus Jennings was Falchuk’s running mate, not a woman you may be thinking of.
petr says
… you CAN NOT get a ballot (cannot vote) unless you’re registered as one of the following:
— “Democrat”
— “Republican”
— “unenrolled”
As in “UIP” doesn’t count because there is no UIP primary, no UIP general and, in fact, no UIP candidate.
If “Chartreause Goblin Party” were on the ballot then Galvin would have listed that amongst the available choices.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
It’s a big deal because Galvin used public funds to encourage voters to switch their registration from one party to another – thus playing favorites on the public dime.
petr says
… misprision of fact. If stop n shop started advertising shots of Jamison for a quarter and the Secretary of State publshed the fact that stop n shop is legally barred from selling Jamison at all, never mind by the shot glass, you’d have a rather different response, I’ll wager…
Galvin is merely saying that the choices you think you have are, in fact, not the choices you think they are… which is, perhaps coincidentally (smirk) exactly the job of Secretary of State
TheBestDefense says
As the news story indicates, 5500 people switched to unenrolled so they can vote in either primary.
and if they then wish to re-enroll in UIP as jconway suggested a week or or so ago, they can do so. I am guessing jconway was registered as unenrolled in anticipation of voting for Bernie and will switch to UIP after the primary, as he has said he is voting for Bernie and cannot do so if he is UIP. BTW, I am not implying anything negative about jconway’s choice or that of any of the 5500 switchers. It is pretty rational thinking.
jconway says
You are exactly correct. The 5,500 are not leaving in droves suddenly but leaving in anticipation of tomorrows deadline and at the instruction of our party and the Secretary of State’s office, which were working fully in sync on this issues until Tuesday afternoon when Galvin went rogue.
The remainder who are choosing to stay with the party are doing so because they do not want to vote in the primaries and want to ensure their support for keeping this party on the ballot extends to November. At least the representative sample size of the emails and calls I have fielded are in this direction. I’ve have received zero complaints about confusion regarding this issue, and I requested that their office forward complaints to me so I can personally apologize to the voter and explain how they can switch. So far I’ve heard nothing.
Pablo says
Losing 22% of your membership is a HUGE number. Kind of like Bernie’s margin in New Hampshire.
jconway says
And we gave them up voluntarily because we want every single member of our party to have the opportunity to vote in the presidential primary. We told every single one of those voters to leave the party and even provided them with links to do so. Fortunately, I have a database and can keep track of who they were so I expect to fully recover the bulk of those who left. But this issue is something we have known about for months and took seriously enough to risk our self preservation over.
Which is why I am flabbergasted at the recent statements from the Secretary of State this week. Particularly since his office knew about this issue for months and had been working with us to address it. Not to mention they were the ones giving us monthly enrollment updates, so his idea of a ‘spike’ of 21,000 isn’t supported by the data.
centralmassdad says
Galvin has always been so awesome that I am also (not) flabbergasted. He does whatever he must to protect his team, and very little else.
jconway says
I’ve been a critic of his for over a decade on this site, long before the UIP existed. What’s worse about this is that the individuals in his office are hard working people who have been incredibly helpful and diligent in giving us fair treatment and fair access since the party came into being.
For him to say in the Herald he saw a spike of 21,000 is not supported by the data his very office provided to us. Leading me to think he is making a mountain out of a molehill or never saw his own data. Both likely explanations in their own right.
TheBestDefense says
The UIP might be well served by running the SoS data for this past month and seeing who left the UIP party, which enrollment they took (D, R or U) and then seeing who came back to UIP. That way you know if your peeps are left, center or right, and what mix thereof.
Peter Porcupine says
Sec. Galvin is an elected Constitutional officer here in the Commonwealth. He has his own authority, and does not need permission.
He can send out weekly mailings of comic strips, and there is nobody to gainsay him.
It might become an issue in the next election, but 2018 is a ways off.
Besides, he’s a Democrat.
Christopher says
…as a Dem to be eligible to participate in national caucuses on April 9th.
jconway says
And is it fair to call them national caucuses if the republicans have caucuses and national gatherings as well?
Christopher says
…by congressional district in proportion to support of the candidates in those districts. Why shouldn’t we call them national caucuses to distinguish them from the state caucuses that are currently being held in communities throughout the state to elect state convention delegates? Yes, the GOP would have to do the same thing, but I’m not familiar with their rules and procedures.
Peter Porcupine says
There had been a proposal to have the State Committee select the delegates but even the SC voted against that. The delegates are apportioned by turnout in the Congressional district, then the candidates who qualify with more than a certain amount (I think 15%) get a number to appoint directly, and the State Committee gets 20 that they appoint directly (in case somebody who should have been elected gets left out). Numbers overall are small because we don’t have racial or gender add-ons.
Christopher says
…there are also at-large pledged delegates elected by the DSC. While we supposedly have affirmative action goals which candidates and slates may take into account, there are not deliberate minority or other add-ons like we have for the state convention. The CD allocations do need to be gender-balanced.