So … I was thinking about this New York mess.
There is a solid, really solid, argument for requiring party registration for primary voting. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect a primary voter to pick a party in advance.
However, it’s just not good enough for the simple reason that two parties have a duopoly in presidential politics. So a voter is forced to choose one, or forced not to vote.
Furthermore the eventual President will be everyone’s President. If we had five, six, seven parties … then the voter who chose none of them would have a weaker case.
But only two choices, in America?
We have to err on the side of greater participation and greater democracy.
Open the primaries. The only thing I would restrict is, if you’re a Democrat, you can’t vote in the Republican primary, and vice versa.
As I’ve noted, i get annoyed at independent voters. But a two-party race for President is undemocratic.
Open all the primaries.
Christopher says
I’d go the other direction. I don’t know if this is how other states do it, but in MA unenrolleds by pulling a presidential ballot also have the opportunity to vote on our partisan committees. That doesn’t seem right at all. All those independents that Sanders is doing so well with could help make the Dem party what they want it to be if they joined. NY’s deadline for switching is earlier than I like, but I think it makes sense to have a stake in the party’s outcome. This of course in no way precludes anyone from voting across party lines in a general election. I completely reject the idea that this is undemocratic.
JimC says
Nobody was thinking about the New York primary in October.
Christopher says
…that I concurred that particular deadline was too early, right?
JimC says
I got distracted by “completely reject” and replied to that.
The more voters the merrier.
merrimackguy says
Bastards
jconway says
Obviously for self interested reasons it would be a lot easier to build a statewide third party to pressure the state legislature if registering with our party didn’t preclude voting in a presidential primary. If the deadline to enroll in us and be a candidate didn’t happen to coincide on the date of that primary. And seeing the legislative primary scheduled for a Thursday in September makes it pretty obvious the powers that be use these laws to ensure the status quo is protected.
Did I favor a closed primary back when I was a Democrat? Absolutely, and the argument then as Christopher is making now is that it would create a purer and more progressive party and force the 53% of the unenrolled into the Democratic party which is the primary they usually vote in.
Yet, most of the unenrolled voters I’ve engaged with in this work are high education voters who want the flexibility to choose between one or the other. They get to be super voters in either primary, while my dad who wanted to vote for Kasich on the GOP side or my Republican friends who wanted to vote for Bernie (for odd and sincere reasons) missed the arbitrary cutoffs to unenroll. If it’s a closed primary it has to allow for same day registration. Though I prefer an open one that allows for same day registration and automatic registration.
I also favor automatic registration since it amazes me how few people know they have to register to vote, what picking a party actually means, or that voting isn’t a right but a privilege they have to jump through hoops to get. I did a voter registration drive last week at Pine Manor College, which is a special needs college, and had several students ask me ‘can special needs kids vote?” Any American citizen can, but the fact that no one taught them their role at any point in their education thoroughly depressed me, but also inspired me to keep doing that work that day.
Make voting free, make voting easy, and make it automatic. The more voters the better, and I am shocked to see some Democrats here gleefully gloat about all the unenrolleds who couldn’t vote in yesterday’s primary. You do the stated principles of your party and the literal meaning of it’s name a massive disservice. You are actually bad Americans. So let’s open up the process and make it easy.
centralmassdad says
This is an issue that animates prople for a few days every four years before it is forgotten. Meanwhile there is no bigger fan of a closed primary with an early and rigid deadline for switching than an incumbent state legislator.
NY has tried from time to time to relax their rules, but the effort never gets anywhere.
Mark L. Bail says
about making people choose a party. From one point of view, parties are parties. Many of us are Democrats because we invest our time and efforts in the the Democratic Party. It can be off-putting to have people switching in and out of our ranks every two years. It’s been a little off-putting that Bernie Sanders, who has always shown at least some disdain for our party, declared himself a Democrat because he would have been completely ignored as a third party Democrat. That’s a party perspective.
From a voter perspective, it’s frustrating to not be able to just vote for a candidate. With our party primary system, people are forced into an association they may not want. People shouldn’t be forced to have to join a party to choose a candidate. They don’t have to do that in a country with a parliamentary system.
The term “undemocratic” really just means “bad” in this context. What we’re talking about representation and voting. Do parties represent its members or voters? Why should parties, for all intents and purposes, get to decide who people get to vote for? Our system developed in response to historical situations. It’s unlikely that we would choose it, if we were building it from the bottom up. Open primaries are probably the best we can do.
sabutai says
A party’s goal is to expand, and the best way to gain allegiance is to have a prospect feel invested in your organization. Allowing an unenrolled voter to vote for a Democrat would, I bet, raise the chance they’d someday enroll. I get that the alternate idea is that if people really want to help a candidate at the ballot box, they’ll join up. Hopefully a candidate will pull them permanently into the party.
I don’t know any research over which truth holds true, though I’m sure it’s out there. I imagine you’d do better having someone join because of their own internal perception of investment than the pull of a candidate.
Mark L. Bail says
We’ll choose your candidate. Your input isn’t necessary.
Even if it were better to have a closed primary, it would be a public relations disaster.
SomervilleTom says
I guess I don’t feel strongly one way or the other.
My sense is that this is mostly being raised because the Sander’s campaign is looking for excuses to avoid the reality that Mr. Sanders is not the first choice of New York voters. There is no evidence that an open primary would have changed the outcome in New York. There is other evidence that Ms. Clinton dominates every demographic except white males.
I’m reminded of those who criticize the peer review system as being “biased” and “exclusionary” and “corrupt” — while their favorite researchers are struggling to be published. The moment one of those “contrarian” papers is published, then suddenly the same crowd rushes to crow loudly about the “credibility” and “reliability” of the peer-review process.
Perhaps New York will change the regulations about primaries this time around. If so, that’s great. If not, so what. I just don’t see it as that big a deal.
merrimackguy says
I just don’t see it as a big deal.
Mark L. Bail says
runs contrary to evidence.
jconway says
If it’s really a crisis that government should solve than we should mail free voter IDs to every single voter. Unless proponents are willing to do that, than I view voter ID as just another barrier to prevent people from voting.
stomv says
Free isn’t enough when the state is closing up RMVs in areas where lots of black folks live.
Free isn’t enough when the state puts RMVs in places that require an automobile to arrive.
Free isn’t enough when lots of old folks in the state simply don’t have a birth certificate. Same goes for folks who suffered from fire or even found their entire community under feet of water.
Free isn’t enough. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.
merrimackguy says
Curious as to why isn’t not.
Mark L. Bail says
what you mean by “voter suppression.”
Does the law lower turnout? Definitely.
Was it a partisan effort implemented in the last 15 years sold as a commons sense policy for preventing non-existent fraud resulting in the disenfranchisement of people of color? Definitely not.
What we are talking about when we say “voter suppression” is the intentional attempt to prevent people from voting, which is very popular with Republicans these days. Look up “voter caging” for some history. The GOP has been trying to hang on to its power by discouraging voting. Most, if not all, of voter suppression is a Republican tactic these days. Democrats have used it at local and state levels in the past. I haven’t heard anything about it in the present, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen on the Democratic side.
bob-gardner says
An action can be discriminatory if it has “disparate impact” even if you can’t show intent.
The claim that only Republicans do this stuff lately so it didn’t happen in New York is a circular argument. Deblasio is right. This is something that should be investigated. Maybe there is less here than it seems but I wouldn’t base that hope the Democrats’ good intentions.
JimC says
I admit I don’t think about this much at other times. But the primary brought it to a head.
Six months is way too long. Six months ago, Sanders seemed about as viable as Jim Webb, maybe less so. (And again, I’m not supporting Sanders.)
It comes down to principle: greater opportunity to participate.
SomervilleTom says
Bernie Sanders wasn’t a viable candidate in the New York primary six months ago, and he wasn’t a viable candidate on the day of the primary. Had the primaries been open, he still would have lost.
JimC says
This isn’t about Sanders. Or the even-less-viable John Kasich.
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps I disagree with your emphasis on the “opportunity to participate” in the functioning of a specific party.
These laws do not prevent people from voting in the primary of the party of their choice. They instead insist that the choice be longer-lasting than one day. Perhaps it’s a bit like the difference between a one-night stand and getting married. Both have their benefits, both have their consequences.
In my view, just as participants in a contemplated sexual relationship have a perfectly justifiable right to insist on a certain longevity of that relationship, so do participants in choosing candidates to represent a political party.
I do not like the idea that people with ZERO commitment to the values of my party can pull ballots and determine the candidates that my party puts forward. I think the voters in a Democratic primary should be Democrats, the voters in a Republican primary should be Republicans, and I think those who aren’t able or willing to make a choice should accept that not voting in a primary is a consequence of that fact.
JimC says
… bending the arc of the universe toward universal access.
There are people with zero commitment to the values of our party who hold public office as Democrats.
Also, like I said the post, if w had seven or eight parties, that would be one thing. We only have two, so compelling joining one is problematic. Primaries are too important and should be open.
Christopher says
It’s not like some of us are preordained party members and everyone else has to jump through hoops. Everyone has the same opportunity to choose a party. If you lean left, go Dem; if right, go GOP. If you really don’t feel strongly or think neither party suits your needs then frankly wait until the general election and sit out the nomination process. There are of course always opportunities to vote for/run as third party or independent candidates that will go straight to the November ballot. People need to realize that you have the right to vote in an election, but it is a privilege to participate in a nominating process.
jconway says
It’s an inferred right under the constitution, one that should be made an explicit right via amendment, and one that should be open to everyone. Most people don’t know what left and right mean, most people feel they are a mix of both, and our schools do a lousy job of helping students become educated and active voters. I frankly think 18 is not too young to vote but perhaps too young to have a party set in stone, and automatically registering 18 year olds as unenrolled (which should be changed to non-partisan since so many voters think it means they have a lesser registration) would be a big step.
You’d be surprised even at more elite colleges I’ve done drives at, how few students understand how this process works. They don’t know why they have to register, why they have to pick a party, or why the process is so damn complicated. I don’t blame them.
Make voting opt out instead of opt in, hold every election on a Saturday or make Election Day a federal holiday, automatic registration, same day registration, etc. Most people vote the person not the party, and I know people who’ve picked ballots from both primaries who aren’t idiots and shouldn’t be derided for having different political viewpoints than a diehard partisan. You’re still supporting policy that enables politicians to pick and choose their voters rather than the other way around.
Christopher says
…and also favor automatic registration, or at least initiated by the government like the draft is. I actually don’t think the process is that complicated; it’s one form to mail or deliver that includes your name and address. People can split their tickets all they want in a general election (though in some cases that’s illogical – why in the world would you vote for HRC, but also your GOP congressional candidate whose going to spend all his time trying to block what she’s trying to accomplish?), but even now I’m not aware of any state that allows you to pull one ballot for some races and the other ballot for others on the same primary day.
I think the privilege is assuming you are entitled to help a party choose it’s nominee, which is an assumption that at least for the presidency only goes back a couple generations at most. I believe you are one who has said that if it’s really for party only they should hold caucuses which they pay for, but won’t the same people then complain how onerous and exclusive THAT is. Nobody is being inherently barred. There are no white primaries or anything else that goes against a specific constitutional protection to the vote. Again, every person DOES have the right to register with a party if they want to participate in their nomination process.
jconway says
I am not alone in arguing that. Women of color are batting 0/3 in Democratic special election primaries because the older whiter parts of the district show up. Now there is nothing exclusionary in the law like there was in the Jim Crow south, but I think you as a white male with more free time to be civically engaged than working people of color impose your own framework on voting and civic participation that is not reflective of where many voters are.
Make it easy, make it free, make it automatic, and make it a day off. I mail out the voter forms from students since none of them bother using snail mail or know how that works. The number of college students who couldn’t properly fill out the form would shock and appall you. It’s really not that simple. You got to make it so easy a 3rd grader could do it.
Christopher says
…except for the idea that those forms are hard to fill out. All it is is name and address, and if you wish a party.
I’m not sure the 0/3 for women of color means anything. MA white population is north of 80%, but I could not quickly find turnout by race stats. There could be all sorts of reasons they haven’t been successful. I’ve supported women in some races and not others, minority candidates in some races and not others, etc. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for doing registration drives in communities of color, which I assume can only help Dems anyway.
jconway says
Sanders supporters are hypocritical since he mopped the floor in closed caucuses which are even less democratic than New York’s. Clinton supporters gloating about the closed primary are even worse. I could care less about how it effects particular candidates. I just want more democracy.
I favor across the board open primaries at all levels of office, same day registration, and automatic registration. As much as possible allow these things to be accessible online and accessible to the poor and elderly who may not have online access. Make it easier, not more difficult. Any barrier to voting is unjust and un-American. Make the Secretary of the Commonwealth a non-partisan appointee while we are at it.
JimC says
There is no such thing as a nonpartisan appointee.
jconway says
But I think you’d get someone from the civil service more likely to do the job they actually are in rather than someone looking at it as a stepping stone to greater things or to accumulate power in their dark corner of the statehouse.
Stephanie Pollack is a Democrat appointed by a Republican with a great resume of objective transit management experience. We can disagree with how she has governed this body, but we can’t argue she is unqualified or views this job as a power trip. Someone similar in the Secretary’s office would perform a great service.
merrimackguy says
He is elected by the legislature.
Christopher says
I’ve long been uncomfortable with the idea that the SoS has to go through a partisan nomination process. They should not be allowed to endorse or chair campaigns either.
Trickle up says
Elections are as you note closed to all but 2 parties.
So, open up elections via IRV or similar methods.
I don’t see what opening up parties to nonmembers gets you except weak parties. It does not solve the problem.
centralmassdad says
More than a fair point–it’s an excellent point.
Trickle up says
the right to associate, guaranteed by the first amendment, is a pillar of democracy.
It includes the right of organizations to self govern and determine their own membership.
Without that democracy would not be possible.
jconway says
I agree with Christopher that party committees and the like are internal and should be selected on a closed ballot. Those races might even be the rare area where a caucus makes more sense than a primary. If every taxpayer is paying for every ballot they should be able to vote in the presidential primary of their choice regardless of party. If you insist on closing it than make it same day registration.
Whomever you supported winning in NY, the NY state democrats just pissed off a lot of independent voters they could’ve signed up into the party if they had same day registration. That’s a terrible own goal for a party supposedly committed to expanding voter rights on principle and also the party that is more welcoming to minorities than the one intentionally trying to prevent them from voting.
Christopher says
…especially if it includes same-day party enrollment for previously registered voters, is tantamount to opening primaries. I favor same day registration for general elections, but all taxpayers have an equal opportunity to register ahead of time for a primary they are paying for anyway. BTW, in MA the DSC has both ballot and caucus elected seats for its Senate district membership.
jconway says
Why don’t you want more people registering to become Democrats? Why do they have to think about doing this 6 months before the primary election when most people have no idea who the candidates will be by that date or if that primary is competitive? What about all the 17 and 18 year olds excited to vote for the first time who missed that arbitrary cutoff? How is that helping create new voters or new Democrat? Your opposition here seems self defeating or perhaps it’s intentionally self limiting the process to those that are already involved.
SomervilleTom says
I think you hit the nail on the head with this question:
I get that you view that as a rhetorical question — I do not! I think the most important thing about voters in a Democratic primary is that those voters share Democratic values. Those values are independent from who the candidates will be and from whether the primary is competitive. In fact, that’s the point and purpose of the exercise.
I’m certain that accommodations could be made for 17 year olds who will turn 18 on or before the primary to choose a party ahead of time.
In my experience, any effective organization requires a certain time commitment from its members. A successful church that forms a search committee to call a new preacher or rector does so BEFORE, not after, the candidates are known. The committee comes first, the candidates next, and the selection last.
Registration is when Democrats form the selection committee. The candidates come next, and the selection (the primary) comes last.
In my view, that is how the process should operate.
I think that creating new Democratic voters is a matter of evangelizing men and women based on the values of the Democratic party. I think it is specifically NOT about recruiting based on the appeal of a specific candidate. Candidates come and go, the same man or woman is often much different as a candidate than as an elected official (see Barack Obama), and the identity of any political party should be about more than the makeup of its last slate.
centralmassdad says
The NY deadline for first time voters was March 25. For those switching, it was last October. The six month deadline is for someone who is already registered in Party X and wants to change to Party Y.
Christopher says
…that I am not defending a deadline that is six months out. I do in fact want people to give SOME thought to their party affiliation and I’m fine with the current 20-day deadline we have in MA. I also favor, and I believe MA now allows, the registration of 17 year olds who will be 18 by election. Can you PLEASE stop trying to put words on my keyboard or thoughts in my head!?
Christopher says
…in a rolling primary with same day registration it would be possible to vote in NH, move to CA, and vote again in June, which doesn’t seem right. Ideally, there would be a single day nationwide, say January 1st by which you have to be registered to vote in a presidential primary. In MA that also gets you registered in time to participate in our caucuses. If you do move in that period you can and should vote absentee in your previous state.
ryepower12 says
Otherwise, closed primaries are mainly a tool to help protect the establishment.
Christopher says
Quite frankly I don’t WANT someone that’s not a little more vested in the party helping choose the nominee. Same-day is great for general elections and I may be open to primaries if it is restricted to first-time registrants at that address and not for switching. Otherwise you open it up to cross-party shenanigans. Just pick a side ahead of time like so many of us managed to do – it’s not that hard.
ryepower12 says
Nevada’s Democratic Party, for example, allows same-day registration for its caucuses, but only allows people who are independents or were not previously registered to register on the day of the caucus and vote in it. (So, for example, Republicans couldn’t register on the day of the Democratic caucus and vote in it.)
And you do realize that having a candidate someone is excited enough to change party registrations for is a great day to help them ‘pick a side,’ right? Preventing them to vote for party rules they will see as unfair, on the other hand, is a great way to help ensure they don’t register as democrats.
Christopher says
…but mostly I would prefer that party ID transcend whichever candidates happen to be running in a given year.
jconway says
The vast majority of people, particularly working people and people of color, don’t know when the deadlines are, the government does a lousy job advertising them, many don’t have the free time to go to the clerks office during work hours or have the Internet access and proper IDs to do it online. You have to pay for your own postage to mail it in. Voting should be automatic when you turn 18, it should be totally free, and same day registration makes participation significantly easier. I am against any barriers to voting, particularly those set by political parties trying to narrow the base of voters they have to appeal to.
Civics education is no longer a requirement in this state, most high schools don’t bother doing registration drives and many people lack enough knowledge in their view to even make a commitment to a party. We should certainly fix those problems on their own, but until we do we are dealing with a politically illiterate populace and it’s easier to meet them where they are and make it easy to vote. Especially since our turnout rates are appallingly low, particularly among the demographics that should be voting the most and actually vote least.
Christopher says
Here in MA, Bill Galvin generally cuts TV ads reminding people of the deadlines. I actually want more people to choose consciously to be Democrats, so I reject your characterization that this has to necessarily narrow the field of voters.