I just got my new voter registration card though the mail. I am seeing that I’m not registered with either party, And I don’t know what to do to change it. And I thought maybe you would know.Uh-oh. I called the Commissioner’s office, just to be sure, but the deadline for changed (as well as new) registrations was definitely Monday.
As of November of 2007, there were about 100,000 registered independents on the city of Philadelphia—about 10% of all voters. Because PA has a closed primary system, none of them is going to be able to vote for Clinton or Obama, or in any other tight local race in the April 22nd election.
Even though the city is majority Democratic (by far), the number of independent voters in the city has grown by about a third since 2001. (Source: PA State voter reg data). The growth of independent voters can be attributed, in part, to the fact that more and more people our age are registering independent as a part of their distaste for party politics.
Which means in local elections, we’re losing the ability to turn out votes from a natural constituency for progressive change (young voters) because of antiquated laws. In New Jersey, and many other states, you can vote in a primary regardless of primary status. You just decide which party primary contest you want to vote in when you get to your polling place on Election Day.
This is a real problem for progressive organizing in Philadelphia. So, shouldn’t we have open primaries here? Or maybe even better, same-day voter registration?
Well, we could, but it'd require a change in state law. Rep. Babette Josephs, Chair of the State Rules Committee, is the one to talk to. Her email is bjosephs@pahouse.net. While I think Jospehs is likely to be supportive of such an effort (I know there’s talk that she is working on a bill right now that would allow non-excuse absentee voting in PA), both Democratic and Republican leaders statewide may not.
As we all know from the special election process here in Philadelphia, some party leaders prefer to consolidate power by reducing participation in primary elections as much as possible.
What else can we do? Don't we all know people who have registered independently? The reality is many of them wouldn’t if they knew how much they were giving up in local elections.
Well, there are always the City Commissioners. There are three people elected in Philadelphia to oversee elections: Marge Tartaglione, Anthony Clark, and Joseph Duda. These folks have a staff and a budget. They could have been calling up non-profits and civic groups with a non-partisan message explaining the way a closed party primary election works. They also could have sent a mailing to all independent voters. They could have gone on Action News. Etc. Etc.
Their office is chartered, after all, to help by:
Of course, we have talked about reforms the Commissioner’s office could implement before without much success, like:
- informing candidates, political party committees, the media and the general public of the voter registration and election process; and,
- encouraging Philadelphians to register and vote.
- The Commissioners could send a postcard in the mail or an email reminding voters about Election Day. It’s been done before, in 2004 and to some extent in 2006, but not in Primaries and not in the 05 General. That’s one way to drive up turnout.
- Another idea: why don’t we take advantage of Wireless Philly and create a secure, online voter database so that Philadelphians could go to any polling location in the city rather than just the one in their ward and division? People live busy lives, and using technology to make tasks like voting simpler is a no-brainer.
- Same-day voter registration is another concept that has helped boost voter turnout in other states. This will require a change in state law, but how can we ever expect a change in state law to occur if election officials in Philadelphia and other large counties don’t get more aggressive and ask for one?
- Vote by mail, public advertising, partnering with utilities to print election info on bills (do you know how easy it would be to print your polling place location on your gas or water bill?), an updated website, and many other ideas are all available to the Commissioners to use to boost turnout.
Which like so many other problems for progressives means we need the Mayor and Council to invest some political capital in this effort.
Mayor Nutter has said he is committed to reforming not just government, but the political process in this city too, and implementing some of the changes listed above is a great way to start. We also have some “activist” members of Council now, and voting reform and voting rights issues seem like a win-win issue for all, especially as we are ramping up to a huge presidential election in the fall.
No matter where the solution comes from, fixing our voting system will create some increase in voter turnout. It won’t solve the whole problem, but when less than 50% of all Philadelphians are likely to come out and vote in April, it’s obvious that something must be done to make change.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
comments on
comments were mysteriously turned off on this post. back on now.
Answering the Orginal Question, Not the Policy Issues
The original post begins with a question about a practical problem, and then everyone, including myself, addresses the broad public policy questions involved and ignores the practical problem.
The person Ray Murphy quotes appears to indicate that he or she did not actually register as a non-partisan. If that person would go to a judge in his or her local police station on election day and swear that he or she registered Democratic, the judge would probably allow the person to cast a provisional ballot and instruct that person to re-register for the November election.
The person Ray Murphy quotes would be well advised to first call City Commissioner Marge Tartaglione's office--215-686-3460--from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and explain the problem. That office can get the original form located. If it shows the person really registered as a Democrat, they can either make the change in registration themselves or give the person a copy of the original form to give to an election day judge.
The public policy debate is important. But this particular situation may just be a clerical error that can be corrected in time for the primary.
not quite
I already called the Commissioner's office as I mentioned above.
The issue here is not about a clerical error. A peer of mine is registered as an unaffiliated voter. Realizing they could not vote in this election without being a member of the party, they wanted to change, but did not realize when the deadline is. Now they have missed.
If we had same-say reg, this would not be a problem.
Since you, Rep Mark Cohen, are a state rep, maybe you could address the broad issue here and change the law.
The Independent Party
Isn't part of the problem that there is/was an 'Independent Party?' So these folks that are registered 'Independent' are not unaffiliated, but rather affiliated with the Independent Party. (whether or not this is purposeful institutional confusion is another matter)
Listen, I understand that some people don't want to be affiliated with a particular party. But if they want to have a say in how a party picks its nominee, then register with that party - even if only for one election cycle.
I just don't feel upset that people are excluded when they effectively say, "I don't want to be a member of your party, but I want to participate in your intra-party processes."
IIRC, when I worked on Howard Dean's campaign in New Hampshire, independents could vote on Primary Day, but technically what they had to do was register on Primary Day with the party within whose primary they wished to participate. (I'm not 100% sure, but fairly confident, as I recall some discussion of how those voters would have to re-register unaffiliated after the election.)
It would certainly be acceptable to me in principle to allow unaffiliated voters to register, or for affiliated voters to change their affiliation, on election day. But the logisitcs of that in Philadelphia, and the potential for misuse and abuse, could be problematic. (In my polling place, the two little old ladies seem barely able to find my name, even when I'm the only one there. If they had to handle a new or change of registration during a busy time, they might just have heart failure and keel over!)
Should it be possible? Probably. Would it be possible to do it efficiently and effectively in Philadelphia? Wow, I just don't know.
a tired excuse
I have had the chance through my work to get to know progressive activists in other states, and everyone complains about the "little old ladies" at their polling place. Lots of cities and states think their government is inefficient. That may be true, but I have also learned through my work that lots of other states manage to have much more effective and open systems of voting than we do.
I hate to be corny, but come on...Yes.We.Can.
I am not a huge fan of open primaries either, but they are a solution. I'd much prefer same-day reg, but even without those reforms (and this is my point about the Commissioners above), we can do more to get independently registered voters in Philadelphia to become Democrats.
The do need to re-register
In NH they do need to re-register unaffiliated after they vote in the primary, it help boost the numbers of the Democratic party there because alot of people did not realize this and remained Democrats.
I want to feel bad for the Independents who do not get a say but time and again when I talk to many of these voters about their lack of voice in the politics of this city, they don't seem to care. I think many Independents register that way because they don't care enough about politics to register with either party.
That being said, I registered a few Independents as Democrats this cycle.
Those little old ladies exist in Minnesota, too
And they seem to handle same day registration pretty well. How about we take away two of the commissioners and their staff, make it an appointed position, and put that new money towards funding some real reforms?
it's not the system, it's the candidates
Like lutton, I actually favor the closed primary system. It just makes sense to me that the people who are in a party should get to choose their party's candidate.
As the Texas primary demonstrates, open primaries come with them a whole different range of issues. Clinton won the Texas primary by 100,000 votes. Something like 109,000 Republicans voted for Hillary the Texas primary. So, in other words, her margin of victory was entirely the result of Republicans crossing over to vote for her. And I think it's safe to assume that those Republicans are not going to be voting for her in the general election.
Hillary's sudden support among Republicans largely coincides with Limbaugh's campaign to have his ditto heads vote for her in the remaining open primaries. In every open primary that occurred before Rush made his plea, Obama had substantially out polled Clinton among cross over Republicans. Then Rush makes his call, and not only does Hillary suddenly crush Obama among Republican voters, the Texas primary suddenly sees even more Rs voting for Ds than previous open primaries. Rush wants Republicans to do this because the longer the Clinton/Obama primary battle goes on, the more likely the ultimate Democratic candidate will come out of the primaries irretrievably damaged.
So, in other words, if Texas had a closed primary system, this primary season would be over. Obama would have won the Texas primary and Clinton would have been forced to step aside. While that's definitely a bad thing from PA's perspective, it would have been a far preferable outcome than to have the internecine warfare that's going on right now that is hurting both candidates and likely making both unelectable.
Now let's consider the last Mayoral primary. What if we had had open primaries then? Nutter would have still likely won but his win would have been inevitably tainted by folks who claimed that he won only because he got Republicans and other non-Democrats to cross over and vote for him. They'd make this argument to state that Nutter was not the true representative of Philadelphia Democrats and therefore cast doubt on his legitimacy.
So, rather than break our current system to accommodate folks who for whatever reason refuse to register as a D, I suggest that we, as a party, do a better job picking candidates that resonate with these folks and therefore motivate them to want to register as a D.
Take the Republicans - no one is arguing that the reason why they are irrelevant in Philadelphia is because of our closed primary system (I've never ever thought, damn I really want to vote in this year's Republican primary because this dude really talks to me). No, they are irrelevant because they are entirely incapable of putting forward candidates that appeal to a significant number of voters.
To the extent that Ds can't get folks to register as a D, I'd argue the fault lies with the party's decision to put forth candidates that do not engage this population. In other words, instead of blaming the system, let's blame the party itself.
I'd also point to Obama as a perfect example of why the system, as currently constituted, works. When there are candidates people want to vote for (e.g., Obama), they'll suddenly see a reason to register as a D to allow themselves to vote in the primary.
Clinton keeps winning D's
And how many R's voted for Obama in Texas?
In fact, at least going into Texas and Ohio, these were the composite exit polls for Democrats in the primaries:
Clinton: 49%
Obama: 47%
She was doing better among actual registered Democrats than Obama.
And, as far as Texas, if it were a closed primary, here are Texas exit polls:
Democrats:
Clinton: 52
Obama: 47
Republicans:
Clinton: 46
Obama: 53
I am not for open primaries either- I would prefer same day registration, with closed primaries. But, with closed primaries, Hillary would have had a much better shot at winning.
I think you are missing the point
I'm not saying open primaries are the only solution, or the best ones, but in most other states you could change your party reg up about 3-4 days before e-day if you wanted, and in some you could do it on e-day. why is that different here? for machine control? are you really for that dewitt?
"DeWitt, when did you stop beating your wife?" - Ray
Ah yes, I forgot - you're either with Ray or you're for machine control.
LOL. Seriously, I am.
Ray, here is where I think you're argument fails - I don't think there is any correlation between requiring voters to register a month before a primary and the existence of Philadelphia machine politics.
IMO, it is simply not that onerous a burden to ask people to be registered for a specific party for a whole month to be eligible to vote in that party's primary.
The way I see, I don't see any material difference between (1) membership requirements for participation in the Democrat primary and (2) membership requirements for participation in the Philly For Change endorsement process.
Are you saying that Philly For Change ought to change its voting process to allow anyone who shows up a meeting to vote for endorsed candidates? Better yet, are you saying that Philly for Change is for machine control?!?!?!
like i said
though my work, i have had exposure to a number of other states, and they do a better job of allowing voters to participate in their elections. the best time to canvass voters and talk to them is in the 2 or 3 weeks before an election. that is when people pay attention. with that kind of evidence in mind, i believe it would be a better system if voters could register on election day or close to it. especially for a candidate like Obama who is attracting young voters, this would make a big difference.
why? because as i have already said, there is more than a little evidence that shows people under 40 and 30 years old are less likely to register into a party than their parents did. so in a city like this, with a close primary, if you don't want to open it, than you need elections officials who do a better job explaining the rules to new residents or people new to voting (or same day reg).
and as i have said any number of times in this thread already, and in others, other states do it. i am not proposing something that i made up.
and yes DeWitt, when it comes to election law, you will find that states with more closed and restrictive systems tend to have more entrenched and established political machines.
OK, well, you didn't answer
OK, well, you didn't answer me: You are wrong about Obama and Clinton's GOP support. In a system of closed primaries, Clinton would have a much better chance of winning. Do you think Obama's victories are tainted?
I guess I don't get your issue, here. Do you really think it is wrong that someone can show up on the same day and register to vote? Forget what is a reasonable or onerous burden for a voter, because that is not the issue: what do you think is best?
I (and I think Ray) think same day voter and party registration is the best option because it helps party building, and helps get more people to vote, which I assume we all think is a good thing.
I could be wrong, but...
I don't think DeWitt's talking about same-day registration at all, just closed vs. open primaries. I disagree with him, but I think that's the only axe he's trying to grind. (Edit -- The requirement of membership for a "whole month" is additionally problematic.)
Ray's post raises a lot of different issues, so maybe we should separate or just note the strands:
1) "Open" vs. "closed" primaries;
2) Same-day voter registration (or at least deadlines closer to election day);
3) Same-day party registration or party-switching (or at least deadlines closer to election day);
4) Voting anywhere in the city with an electronic database;
5) Vote by mail;
6) Other methods to advertise/notify voters about election and registration dates, rules, etc. (There are several of these.)
some reading
did a quick google search to see if I can find some evidence of the theory that Clinton won Texas because of Rush Limbaugh's ditto heads (a theory that was explained in detail on MSNBC's Countdown a week or so back). Here's what I found:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125327.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_cl...
However you want to look at the numbers, there was obviously a significant amount of Republicans who voted for Clinton in the Texas Democratic primary just to screw with the primary results. If you take that effect away, maybe Obama doesn't win but at best Clinton wins by an even smaller margin than she did - as in a couple thousand votes versus a hundred thousand votes.
As for my "issue," why doesn't someone from PFC explain why it requires people to have attended two meeting before they can vote in PFC's endorsement process?
As long as Ray serves on the steering committee that has more onerous membership requirements than Pennsylvania's Democratic party, I don't see how he can complain about the requirement that people register as a D one month before the primary.
more reading
and here is an interesting link that discusses a poll that showed Obama leading Clinton 2:1 among Republicans prior to the Texas primary. Considering the actual results were 3:1 in favor of Clinton, that's a pretty impressive turn around and suggests that had Limbaugh not made his plea Obama's advantage among crossover voters would have given him the primary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/
And as for Dan's point criticizing the Obama campaign for having won previous primaries because of crossover support from Rs, this was exactly my point re the "legitimacy" issue when I brought up the Nutter case. The Clinton campaign, in the same manner that Dan did here, has criticized the legitimacy of Obama by stating that Obama's primary wins do not reflect the true will of the Democratic party - because of the open primary system permits non-party members to determine the party's nominee, the legitimacy of Obama as the true choice of Ds can be questioned. And as a result, Clinton who IS statistically eliminated has been able to hang around by impugning the legitimacy of Obama's wins in open primaries.
Dewitt, I am not questioning
Dewitt, I am not questioning the legitimacy of Obama. I am asking if you do, since you are against open primaries?
The fact is that Clinton has attracted more D's than Obama, but he kills her among R's and I's. That is just a fact. I support Obama, and I think the rules are the rules.
Anyway, again, I am not asking for you to lash out at Ray as you do above, I am simply asking what you think is the best system.
like i said times two
[reposted from above]though my work, i have had exposure to a number of other states, and they do a better job of allowing voters to participate in their elections. the best time to canvass voters and talk to them is in the 2 or 3 weeks before an election. that is when people pay attention. with that kind of evidence in mind, i believe it would be a better system if voters could register on election day or close to it. especially for a candidate like Obama who is attracting young voters, this would make a big difference.
why? because as i have already said, there is more than a little evidence that shows people under 40 and 30 years old are less likely to register into a party than their parents did. so in a city like this, with a closed primary, if you don't want to open it, than you need elections officials who do a better job explaining the rules to new residents or people new to voting (or same day reg).
and as i have said any number of times in this thread already, and in others, other states do it. i am not proposing something that i made up.
and yes DeWitt, when it comes to election law, you will find that states with more closed and restrictive systems tend to have more entrenched and established political machines.
Correlation does not imply causation
I think this is a perfect example of someone mistaking correlation for causation.
I (and I think Ray) think
Then why not have Philly For Change adopt the same policy?
I tried to resist
I know it only encourages you to reply. But I don't see how it is applicable...you do understand that a vote to endorse a candidate at PFC does not mean they win office right away, right? PFC is a private club, not a political party. It is not governed by state law.
DeWitt, I think we have come to the end of the road on this conversation. You had a disagreement with my post. You posted it. I think everyone can read your thoughts above. They can read mine. What else is there to say? You are against open primaries. Check. Got it.
Apparently you are against same-day voter reg too. Check got it.
Anything else?
The point, DeWitt
Is that voting reform is an important issue. One important question is how to get more people to vote. At least theoretically, having more people vote will increase the numbers of people who favor "progressive" policies going to the polls.
One way, arguably, to get more people to vote is to make it easier to vote. This is something that Ray has been focused on for a long time. Unfortunately, this issue has not been one which has received a whole lot of attention - be it from the party machines or progressive activists. I appreciated Ray's unwavering advocacy on this issue.
It stands to reason that making it easy to vote in primaries goes along with making it easier to vote in general.
You seem to want to argue some very particular points. First, some advice - why not make it less personal?
Second, you seem awfully sure of your analysis. Why is that the case when you don't really have sufficient data to make such an argument one way or the other; no one does. It is very hard to know for sure who voted for whom for what reasons in Texas: it's all pure speculation. And what you don't have to even balance out your speculation is any information on how many voters who legitimately wanted to vote for Obama might not have done so had they had a closed primary process.
Even if you are right in your analysis - have you considered that in keeping primary systems closed, we are essentially undermining the principle of voter reform aimed at increasing voter participation?
You want better candidates. So do I. A point of agreement. But it seems to me that one of the best ways to get better candidates is to loosen the controls that entrenched party systems use to consolidate their hold on the electorate. Stricter limitations on who votes in primaries and how they do so is one such method of control.
First, some advice - why not
Where did I make it personal? I read back through this thread and I don't see where I made anything personal? On the other hand, I clearly see where Ray adopted his typical two-pronged argumentative technique: (1) adopt a patronizing tone and (2) make ludicrous accusations about what his opposition's position necessarily entails.
And for what it's worth (and I know it's worth little because I know that Dan and Ray will read hostility into my words whenever they get a chance), I didn't "lash out" against Ray. I responded to his ludicrous accusation that my being against open primaries somehow necessitated the conclusion that I was for machine politics. Had he not made this ludicrous accusation, I would have never felt compelled to elaborate on my point.
I suppose to convey my proper tone I should use more liberal use of smileys.
For instance,
I agree that increased voter participation is a goal; however, I disagree that we should pursue it to the exclusion of others - for example, (1) picking a candidate that was chosen by Democrats and (2) avoiding the legitimacy issue I've spelled out. In other words, IMO, the benefits of an open primary are outweighed by its costs.
I also think that any marginal loss of voter participation caused by our current system can be made up through increased voter registration and education activities. In other words, the goal of increased voter participation can be achieved through other means that do not carry with them the negative externalities associated with open primaries.
So does Ray. For instance, he cites nothing but his personal conviction to support his claim that closed primaries cause machine dominated politics.
Dewitt, you still keep
Dewitt, you still keep ignoring this.
What do you think is the best system? The current one?
And, since without open primaries, Obama might very well not be the nominee, do you think his victories are tainted? If not, why not?
What do you think is the
I think PA's current system is better than any of the alternatives so far proposed.
I personally do not think his victories are tainted - the rules are what the rules are. However, the point I was making is that as this election demonstrates, rules that permit open primaries are bad rules because they allow sore losers (aka the Clintons) to question the legitimacy of the candidate who won the primaries. And by delegitimizing the Democrat's candidate, the Democrats are reducing our chances of selecting a candidate able to beat the Republicans. And if our ultimate goal is to beat the Republicans, I think that having a system that lessens that candidate's ability to beat the Republicans by permitting that candidate's legitimacy to be eroded indicates that rules permitting open primaries are bad rules.
They permit sore losers to
They permit sore losers to question the results? Didn't you, in your first post, question the results of Texas?
Let's Set New Turnout Records On April 22, 2008
As of early in the day on March 24, 2008--likely before over 20,000 new registrations had been processed--there were a record high of 770,733 Democrats and only 147,655 Republicans 90,084 Independendents and non-partisans registered to vote in Philadelphia.
The final registrations should bring the number of registered Democrats to close to 800,000, with at least slight declines in the other categories. Federal and state law keeps some people on the books after they have left the city in the name of protecting their rights, so whatever the number of registered voters, it is higher than the number of actual voters living in the city.
To the best of my recollection, the all-time high for a Democratic primary was under 400,000 total votes cast for mayor in both 1983 (Goode vs. Rizzo) and 1987 (Goode vs. Rendell). The high-turnout gubernatorial primary in 2002 (Rendell vs. Casey) probably was under 300,000 total votes.
We have a real chance of breaking 400,000 total votes in this Presidential primary this year because we have candidates that inspire people to be involved.
The involvement will not be because of an all-powerful political machine. The Democratic Party organization did not control the mayoral nomination in 2007, and it will not control the presidential nomination in 2008.
People need to know the date of the primary. The primary elecction date is far less well known than the candidates are. Those of us who help voters figure out when to vote and how to vote (some voters need to be reminded that they should vote for delegates and alternates with the names of the candidates under their names) will gain the satisfaction of seeing turnout rise significantly as a result of our efforts.
Primaries
Let's make the assumption that Rush Limbaugh is an intelligent creature and, for some inexplicable reason, is able to comand voters in red states, or anywhere else, to vote for a particular democratic candidate in order to secure a more favorable general election opponent for the Republican.
Let's also assume that, the location of this "command" is a place with same-day registration and/or an open primary.
Question: Are the results a true and accurate depiction of the mood of the Democratic Party at that moment in time.
Answer: No they are not.
While I believe that absentee ballot rule should be more flexible, that our high school students should learn more about the vote, that the election date should be highly publicized, I do not believe that government should place a political party in a position to, potentially, not capture an accurate snap shot of that party at that time. Granted, the Rush Limbaugh example is slighly extreme (but not unfounded in fact). Nevertheless, we have to come to a consensus on what we want out of primaries. Do we want everyone to participate or do we want to capture the mood of the political party at that time? That conversation must include the two major political parties.
Unlike Julia, I have no real sympathy for the plight of the independent voter relative to primaries. Independent voters are, typcially, higer educated and are making an active choice to be a member of that party (or no party at all). If they are struck by a candidate of another party, they have the opportunity to switch pre-election. This year's deadline was reported in both major newspapers and, at least, one TV news outlet. There is a certain level of individual responsibility at issue here too. When I turned 18, I sought out my voter registration. The only thing that came to me was my Selective Service card!
Primaries are party elections. I am a Democrat. I don't want my vote dilluted by Rush's faithful!
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
do you really believe this?
I know more than one "highly educated" person who has moved to Philadelphia, re-registered in PA, but assumed that voting rules that applied in the state where they lived before would be the same here, went to vote in a primary on Eday, and were turned away because they had maintained their independent status.
If they knew this was a closed system, many of them would have registered as Ds, but since they did not know, chose to keep their independent status.
We're not talking, in Philadelphia, about 100,000 independent voters who are swing votes for Republican candidates. We're talking, at some significant level, about people who are progressive, or fed up with Dem party shenanigans (remember those?) and don't want to affiliate if they don't have to.
Most that I know, WOULD affiliate and have affiliated when they are informed that they get locked out otherwise.
Because this is a TREND, meaning that more and more young voters who move here will want to be independent in increasing numbers than the past, we need to respond and either allow open primaries, or same-day reg, or at least get our three full-time paid City Commissioners and their large staffs to do something to make it easier or people to understand the rules as they exist.
Or else a larger and larger number of our electorate--many of whom I suspect are natural progressive votes--won't get to vote in primaries, which are the most important elections in the city.
How about this?
You register as a Democrat, you vote in Democratic primaries.
You register as a Republican, you vote in Republican primaries.
You register as an Independent or without a party preference, you can vote in either primary -- either by same-day party registration or just by being allowed to pull whichever lever you like.
Likewise, if you register as a member of a party that doesn't have a candidate on the ballot -- Green or Libertarian or what have you -- then you can vote for either primary.
This would keep registered Republican Limbaughites from voting for Clinton, registered Democrats from voting for McCain or Romney (and yes, there was a campaign by some netroots Dems to keep Romney in the race), and would allow everyone registered to vote to be able to vote.
It would give slightly more flexibility (and perhaps more power) to Independent voters, but I think that the number of people registering as crypto-Independents for the sole purpose of spoiling the other parties' elections would be trivial.
The reason why I liked same
The reason why I liked same day registration with closed primaries is that I think it helps Democratic party and progressive organizing- ie, show people that there is a demonstrable benefit to being a registered Dem.
Your system is the one that
Your system is the one that is in place in some states- closed to other parties, but not to independents.
Here is my rambling
Here is my rambling exposition of why, with even Tim's middle position, I am against allowing non-party members vote in a party's primary and why I see the Democratic primary as just a scaled up version of the PFC endorsement process:
I see the primary as the means of people who are members of the Democrat "club" to select their candidate. I see the Democratic or Republican primaries as creatures of the parties themselves.
In other words, to the extent we as U.S. citizens have a right to vote, that right exists only in the general elections. On the other hand, the right to vote in a primary exists only to the extent our status as a member of the party holding the primary entitles us to it. I've never done the legal analysis or studied any cases remotely related to this field but I suspect that closed primaries are constitutional because there is no independently existing right to vote in a primary (just as there is no independently existing right to vote in the PFC endorsement process).
If you guys think I'm wrong - if you really think there is a legal difference between the Democratic primary and the PFC endorsement process and if you really think that people do have the right to vote in a primary regardless of party affiliation, find a lawyer from among the many who read this site and file a complaint asking a court to enjoin the Democrats or Republicans from holding closed primaries.
Until you get a court to decide in your favor, as far as I'm concerned the Democratic primary process and the PFC endorsement process are identical in all respects except scale. And all the reasons that justify PFC having a closed endorsement process with no "same day registrations" also apply to justify why party primaries should also be closed without same day registrations.
ok
No one said it was illegal. I said that it was a strategic mistake for progressive Philadelphians to let the current law shut out the 100,000 independent voters in the city who would likely vote our way (especially) in local races.
I proposed 3 possible solutions, though I am sure there are more. You don't like two and ignored the third (that the Commissioners' do a better job explaining the rules).
Sympathetic to them or not, the fact is more young people--our peers--are not registering in parties each year.
The 10% of the current electorate could become more: like 12% or 15%. I don't have access to a voter file right now, but when I did, at least in center City, I observed that most of the independents belonged to a demographic profile that indicated they might be likely voters, so it's actually on a ratio level, more than 10% of the electorate we lose in local races by not figuring out how to get new independents to vote in democratic primaries.
The major difference
that I see between the national political parties and smaller political organizations is that the former are selecting candidates for public office, while the latter are not.
There are good reasons why you may not wish to have nonmembers vote in party elections -- for committeeperson, or any other where party officials are elected directly.
But there is a different burden to be met when one or the other nominee will ultimately represent everyone who lives within their district, Democrat, Republican, and Independent alike.
This is why primaries are regulated by laws governing campaigns for public office, while campaigns for head of PFC or other smaller groups are not. Union elections are likewise governed by different rules, as are votes by shareholders in other organizations.
You could argue that everyone only deserves a thumbs up or thumbs down in the general elections. But you can also argue that everyone should have a chance to vote for their favorite candidate to ensure that he/she has a chance to make it that far.
This is why primaries are
Campaigns for the head of the Democratic City Committee, like "campaigns for head of PFC or other smaller groups," are not regulated by laws governing campaigns for public office.
You are, as the literary types like to say, mixing metaphors.
This is what I said
I'm explicitly distinguishing between members of the city committee and nominees for public (i.e. not party) office. In other words, the analogue of a Philly for Change officer is a Democratic Party officer (like head of the city committee)-- not a party's nominee for public office. And I think that a public primary administered by the state is something more than a big endorsement vote.
U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled Open Primaries Cannot Be Required
The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated a successful California referendum question, having the force of law, that required California political parties to have their primaries open to non-party members. Political parties, the court ruled, are the ultimate authority on who can vote in their primaries, provided that their rules do not unconstitutionally discriminate. So no lawsuit demanding open participation in primaries is likely to be ultimately successful anywhere in the U.S. unless the Supreme Court would change its mind.
As a longtime active Democrat, I share DeWitt's reservations about allowing people with a strong commitment to the Republican Party to vote in the Democratic Party primaries. With a vast monetary advantage in most competitive elections, with a vast differential in the number of jobs that can be handed out to supporters, with a vast differential in media support (a "liberal" newspaper in right-wing terminology is a newspaper that DOES NOT ALWAYS support the Republican nominee), it seems to me that Republican Party has enough natural advantages without Republicans determining Democratic nominees.
Those around in the 1999 primaries might recall the tactic of Sam Katz of running $2 million worth of negative ads against the two strongest Democrats in general election matchups: Martin Weinberg and John White. Katz wanted a battle with John Street in the general election, and he got it. Philadelphians got 8 years of John Street, and Weinberg and White have had substantially lower profiles in the years since.
Whether Pennsylvania allows same-day registration or not is clearly within our scope of responsibility. Canvassing for Obama in New Hampshire, I was impressed that the street lists included a listing of non-registered people at various addresses. The advancement of data bases thus dramatically reduces the possiblity of fraud; people who are not on lists of non-registered will stand out and their bona fides can be investigated if their votes are decisive (and if their votes are cast separately.)
Same-day registration obviously can include primaries, or not include primaries. It can include permission for registered voters to switch parties, or it can be limited to non-registered voters. Getting it out of the Pennsylvania Senate (or of the House, if the Reublicans have a net gain of one or more seats in 2008) would be a real challenge, but it does seem to be worthwhile to begin consider the issue's complexities and ramifications based on the growing body of experience with it in other states.
Who are the "independents"
There is a differnce between "independents" and non-partisans. Most of the people who cannot vote in primaries are non-partisans , indicated by an "N" on the street list. These are people who did not check a Party box.
Nonaffiliated vs. other
Interesting point. Sorry if i obfuscated this.
According to the state, there are 74,247 unaffiliated Philadelphia voters and 15,591 affiliated with "other" parties.
I think the difference, in reality, is minimal. In a city where 3 out of 4 registered voters is a Democrat, the primary continues to be the only election for municipal elections and state house and senate races that counts.
And, I know I have said this before, but I have had a chance to work on a few elections full-time in the city and have met a lot of people (anecdotal evidence of course, apologies in advance) who did not know they had to be dems to vote in a primary until it was too late. I think the Commissioners could do a better job getting the info out, yet I have little faith they will without political intervention from the Mayor or Council (as I say in my original post).
Registering "N"s
I was recently registering voters 'door to door' with an emphasis on switching non-partisans to Dems. I was amazed how many people did not want to switch. This in light of the biggest primary election in recent history.
Curious
Did any of these nonswitchers give reasons?
Reasons
Not really. They just said they would vote in November. It was puzzling.
Cheers to Lou
Lou going door-to-door is exactly what I wish every committee person and ward leader in the Dem. party would do. Let's be clear, that is not the norm. And Philly for Change and NN and Lib City don't have the resources to do this, as much as we want to.
In the absence of that, I wish municipal leaders--like the mayor and council--would direct the City Commissioner's offices to spend some energy publicizing voting rules so that those unaffiliated voters who want to vote in the Democratic primary (or Republican) would know that they need to re-register to do so.
Many Non-Partisans/Independents Emotionally Committed
Many non-partisans, independents, and registered non-voters are emotionally committed to their position. I learned that years ago when I sent out a newsletter to those of them in my legislative district explaining eligibility rules for primaries, the importance of primaries, and the importance of voting in elections generally.
I got back a good number of replies which indicated that many of these people were deeply alienated from the political process. Their goal was to limit their involvement in the political process, and their status as non-voters in many elections was a way to do that.
It was not that they were ineffectively out of lack of knowledge pursuing the goal of maximizing their influence. Rather, it was that they were very effectively achieving their goal of limiting their participation and focusing their lives on other things.
I, and the vast majority of people posting on Young Philly Politics, tend to believe in incurring some costs of political participation in order to get the benefits of governmental policies in greater accord with our beliefs. But there is clearly a substantial segment of the public that reverses that process: they willingly incur the costs of governmental unresponsiveness to their beliefs in order to get the benefits of non-participation in politics.
One of the things I like most about the Obama campaign is its ability to make many deeply alienated and cynical people think anew about the possibilities of meaningful gains through political participation. To paraphrase what DeWitt said earlier, when people have a candidate that they think is worthy of their vote, the procedural obstacles to their voting melt away and they become actively engaged.
Registering voters
There is no reason Liberty City, NN or PFC cannot register voters. This is all done on an individual basis. some committee people do a good job, some do not. All do this unpaid. All it takes is a street list and a pack of voter registration forms.
and a lot of time
i don't disagree Lou that we could do that. But as I have asked so many times before, why should wewhat do the City Commissioners do? We pay them to make info about voting accessible to all and they don't do a very good job.
Why bother having these offices if we have to do all the work as volunteers anyway?
I don't mean to suggest I
I don't mean to suggest I have a clear handle on what City Commissioner's are supposed to do -- particularly the minority commissioner -- other than handle elections. But I have never believed that they believe -- or the party believes -- that they should register new voters.
My thoughts have always been that as a candidate it really is not a great use of time to register new voters in non-Presidential primaries because they do not vote in near the numbers for the effort it takes to get them registered. (This does not include people who just turned 18, they can be highly motivated.) If people cannot take the effort to register to vote, its a lot of work to get them to vote. (Not that they won't it's just you have limited time and resources.) If it is between spending time begging that 30 year old guy to finally register now that he has moved into the division, or helping your stalwart always votes in every election at the same time Grandmother who forces her kids and grandkids to vote, it is an easy call for most committeepeople. Granparents rule.
My belief is that the other reason that Committeepeople don't typically do mass voter registration drives in their divisions -- aside from the fact that candidates and other non-profits hold them alot -- is that more voters means more pain. Aside from convincing people that you are not just signing them up for jury duty, if you do a half decent job as a committeeperson, people will hound you to death. (Just my experience.) So some committepeople have a vested interest in keeping those numbers low.
Many measure the strength of a committeeperson (or a ward leader for that matter) by their ability to turn out votes by percentage, not raw number. Percentage of turnout and for a particular candidate. Getting people out in the Presidential Primary is not a big deal, getting them out in the DA's race is the work of the true party loyalists.
Buddy Cianfrani (I think it was him, it could have been Tayoun, but I remember Cianfrani saying it), used to say, that you had him all year and in return he only asked for two days a year. I used that line to get people to vote and the marginal folks hounded me to death with requests for all sorts of stuff. Handling isn't a big deal, but it does add to the time to get into the house after a long days work. Adding more people who are not with the program adds to your work and has the chance of not materially increasing your clout as a committeeperson. Others may disagree, but that's how a lot of folks I know see it.
Coming back to the commissioners' office
This is a very good argument against committeepeople, ward leaders, and campaign workers doing the bulk of the heavy lifting to register voters (although I think there's more value in reaching out to people who've just moved into the division than you're granting here).
But I don't see an argument here as to why the city commissioner's office shouldn't help to register voters or do more to encourage and educate the citizenry about voting. Doesn't having a political office specifically devoted to encouraging election participation mitigate some of the conflicts of interest that you describe? After all, the specific additions that Ray and others are calling for -- mailers, public advertisements, etc., don't usually lead to a deluge of unrelated requests.
I agree that the City
I agree that the City Commissioner should take the lead in registering voters. I have always wondered why the Row Offices exist anymore anyway. It seems that they could be removed with little effect on government. (OK, I really do know why, but patronage jobs is no longer a valid reason for offices to exist.)
As to getting to know people who just moved into your division, that really depends on the neighborhood. In my old division, people moved in and out so quickly (kids in apartments), so it didn't always pay off. I'd send them a little postcard nonetheless.
But committeepeople, assuming they work hard, can be an invaluable interface with government. Block captains are great for organizing block related issues, but City and State government is a morass and getting it to be responsive is really why committeepeople exist, in my view.
The other issue not addressed here is that Motor Voter really has added a lot of folks to the rolls. So many in fact that it used to be hard to get an accurate read on who lived in a particular division.
I believe the primary
I believe the primary election is for the candidate to represent the Democratic or Republican, Green, Libertarian party etc in the general election. Therefore it should be only the members of that party voting for the candidate who best represents them.
I feel no sympathy for people who want to register as an independent of not affiliated, because you made the decision not be to a member of the party then you have no say in who represents the party.
I do believe in same day registration which already takes place in atleast six states and makes sense on a logical level.If you can show your 18 and living in that division you have every right to vote.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter".
Dr Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
sympathy/no sympathy
a number of people have said they have no sympathy for unaffiliated voters.
that's fine if you believe that,or that it is that simple. but i don't. i know lots of people who are very progressive who are so disgusted with our Democratic party that they will not put their name down as a member of that party unless they have to.
in many states, they don't have to vote.
when they move here, they do. and they will if someone tells them to.
problem is no one explains the rules. just like it's hard to find your polling place.
therefore, i have no sympathy for a city commissioner's office that does not do its job well. and i have no sympathy for a mayor or members of council who keep authorizing their budget without demanding more accountability and a better product from their office.
further, as i have said before, there is a trend--measurable in Philadelphia elections alone--of younger voters not signing up with either party. A trend that indicates a pattern that smart progressives need to address systemically, Rep. Cohen. Just type this "young voters independent unaffiliated" into Google and see what pops up. So folks can rail against this trend as much as they want, but it won't change young voter minds without a bit more nuanced engagement then "they're stupid."
To Change The Law Requires Help of Others
To change the law requires 102 votes in the state house, 26 in the State Senate, and the support of the Governor. This is neither an easy nor an impossible burden to overcome.
Are there any organizations that have endorsed same day voter registration? Are there any organizations that would encourage its members to contact legislators for same day voter registrations? Does the Committee of Seventy have a position on this? Does the County Commissioners Association and the Pennsylvania League of Cities have a position on this?
I would be glad to meet with Ray and any group of concerned citizens about this issue to gather information and to begin research and organizational work needed to get a campaign to pass such a law off the ground.
I'm sorry, I don't follow
All you have to do is log on to Project Vote Smart's website or Fair Vote or the NCSL (a site I hope you look at every day Representative) and see that this, and many other voting reforms are common, progressive sense.
Further, Philly for Change, Neighborhood Networks, Liberty PA, and America Votes all met with the Commitee of 70 and Commissioner Edgar Howard in 2006. Marc Stier can back me up on this as he is the one who brought the idea of same-day registration to the table then. Not a single thing has happened since, despite our solidifying our common platform in writing, and follow-up attempts to get Zack Stalberg to act as an advocate for these changes.
And you have the nerve to say that it is incumbent on us to keep the ball moving forward?
I have a job. I have other obligations. It is your job to write the bill and find the votes to pass a change to the law, not mine.
Nobody Has To Do Anything
Nobody has to do anything, Ray. But it appears to me rather odd to say a change of law is important and then take offense when I offer to meet with you and others who agree with you to begin what is a long and difficult process of passing a liberalization of registration procedures in a situation where there is a paper thin Democratic majority in the House and a solid Republican majority in the Senate.
How about posting the Philly for Change-Neighborhood Networks-Liberty PA-America Votes "common platform" on this site so I and others can look at it? In passing legislation in Pennsylvania, it really helps to have advocates from Pennsylvania; advocates from other states are of decidedly less importance.
I assume the meeting with then-City Commissioner Howard and Committee of Seventy CEO Zach Stalberg was to attempt to convince them to join you as advocates; neither or both together had the power to implement changes by themselves. Historically, the Committee of Seventy was a key advocate (along with the Urban League) in the passage of Pennsylvania's original registration by mail legislation in 1976. The Committee of Seventy has also been a voice against toughening voter ID requirements.
I am generally aware that election day registration has sometimes been followed by higher turnouts. I am also aware that the election of potential 3rd Party Presidential candidate Jesse Ventura as Governor of Minnesota on a 3rd Party ticket was immensely aided by same day registration, a precedent that does not thrill me.
I think a key to the fairness of any election system is the accessibility of a list of eligible people. In my view, the development of readily accessible data bases of unregistered voters greatly adds to the feasibility of election day registration because it adds to the fairness of the process, and greatly reduces the potential of fraud in the process.
That being said, the vast majority of people who vote even in a same day registration system will be the registered voters. To bring the unregistered into the process requires advocates on their behalf to overcome the general Republican and societal resistance to expanding the franchise.
Search terms for YPP
Just for fun, here are some search terms people used to find YPP in the last few hours:
1)"can a registered independent vote in the PA primary?"
2)"independent voters" +"primary election"
3)"Pennsylvania Primary Rules"
4)"Is the Pennsylania Primary an Open Primary"
5)"PA Primary Election Rules"
6)"pa closed primary or open"