POLITICAL JUNKIES

ChiSandy,

That was so very well said, thank you. You can't claim ignorance of the process and then cry foul, nor will outright disdain for the process change reality . Trump' initial comment on his children not being able to vote was to saying something to the effect that they had to register a year ahead of time in order to do so. A year? Not even close.

Devin Cannon's voter registration has been marked "independent" for as long as she can remember. This means she's never been allowed to vote in a major party presidential primary election in New York, which operates on a closed primary system.

But this year, she wanted to change.

"I truly did not feel that I belonged in either party," she told ThinkProgress via email. "And suddenly Bernie Sanders came along."

I hung up feeling completely defeated and confused and honestly just started crying.

Cannon knew she had to switch her party affiliation to Democrat if she wanted to vote for Sanders, the independent U.S. senator from Vermont who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. She also knew that she had to change her party by October 9, 2015 — more than six months before the election happened. New York's October deadline is the earliest change-of-party deadline in America.

Not wanting to miss her chance, Cannon said she mailed a change-of-party form to the Monroe County Board of Elections in August. But when she checked on the status of her registration last month, she was told her form wasn't received until late October. She would be ineligible to vote for Sanders in the spring.

"I hung up feeling completely defeated and confused and honestly just started crying," Cannon said.

Cannon's situation is most likely a product of human error — the registration may have gotten lost in the mail, for example. Monroe County Board of Elections commissioner Thomas Ferrarese said it's unlikely her form got backlogged or lost. "We're very sensitive about processing everything on time," he said.

Mistake or otherwise, experts say New York's strict closed primary rules — which state that only registered Democrats can vote for Democratic presidential candidates, and only registered Republicans can vote for Republicans — coupled with its uniquely early change-of-party deadline will prevent more people than Cannon from voting for their preferred candidate.

And in an election year driven by widespread appeal for non-establishment candidates, the fallout from the muddled process may be greater than ever.

Expecting Problems On Election Day

Cannon probably isn't the only New Yorker who will experience problems on April 19, the state's upcoming Election Day. More than 3 million people — about 27 percent of the state's voters — were registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties as of April. In a presidential campaign marked by popular non-establishment candidates and high independent voter turnout, those voters could swing the primary results significantly.

Susan Lerner, the executive director at Common Cause New York, says it's likely at least some of those people will get turned away at the polls due to confusion about the early change-of-party deadline.

"We think that there are going to be some number of people who are going to show up at polling places on April 19 expecting to be able to vote because they're registered, and they won't be able to," Lerner told ThinkProgress. "People don't understand that they have to register very far in advance."

We think that there are going to be some number of people who are going to show up at polling places … and they won't be able to [vote].

There are a number of reasons why some New York voters might get confused, and think they're able to vote when they aren't, Lerner said. For one, voters might just not know about the strict process — they may think New York has open primaries, or same-day voter registration, like other states.

"They'll think that New York, like other states, has same-day registration or an open primary," she said. "And we're not even close to open … I like to say we have a closed-shut primary system."

In addition, some registered voters who switched parties after the October 9 deadline may not have received clear confirmations that their party change would not count for the presidential primary election. Thomas Connolly, the deputy director of public information at the New York State Board of Elections, told ThinkProgress that individual counties are in charge of sending out confirmation notices to voters, and there's no state law mandating what those notices should say.

Many voters have already expressed frustration and confusion about the change-of-party deadline, Connolly said. He said he's been getting "dozens" of voter complaints about this every day — far more than usual.

"A lot of people have called and complained and criticized us for not doing more to publicize this deadline," he said. "But there's only so much we can do with the resources we have. The public information office is literally two people."

Rosemarie Clouston, who manages the voter hotline at Election Protection, told ThinkProgress she's also received complaints from registered independents in New York who want to be able to vote in the primaries.

"It's not new for this election, but unfortunately folks are trying to vote in this election, getting caught up by the law, and are not able to vote for the people they wanted to vote for in these primaries because of this," she said.

Why Is The System Like This?

The October 9 deadline to change parties only impacts New Yorkers who were already registered to vote beforehand. New, previously unregistered voters had until March 25 to file registrations, and they could choose whichever party they wanted.

But in other states, the process for all voters — registered or not — is a bit more flexible. At least 16 states have completely open primaries, where anyone is allowed to vote in the presidential nominating contest, regardless of party affiliation. Ten states have semi-open primaries, where party-affiliated voters are restricted to their party's primary but independent voters can choose which nominating contest they'd like to vote in.

They have the power base, and what they seek to do is preserve their power base.

The main argument for open primaries is that they're more accessible. The main argument against them is that they're subject to so-called "party crashing," when people from another party conspire to manipulate the contest and vote en masse for a bad or unelectable candidate.

Party crashing doesn't happen much for large parties like Democrats and Republicans. But in New York, where smaller parties like Green and Working Families have actual influence in the state, a closed primary may protect them from outside manipulation.

"That's kind of part of why the closed process is there — it doesn't allow the larger parties to steal minor parties' nominations," Ferrarese said. "I think that's a safeguard that protects the minor parties that a lot of people don't realize."

Lerner, however, said she believes the state's closed primary system allows political parties, not voters, to be the "dominant force" of elections in the state.

"The closed primary system means that all election administration and election law is determined in terms of what is best for the two major political parties and the people that run the parties," she said.

As for why New York has such an early change-of-party deadline, Lerner said she believes the political parties want longtime, faithful voters.

"They don't see it as advantageous to have extraneous voters suddenly joining their party to suddenly vote in a primary," she said. "They have the power base, and what they seek to do is preserve their power base."

Bad News For Sanders, Trump

When it comes to New York's fast-approaching presidential primary election, Lerner said potential voters from both parties would likely be impacted by New York's strict election rules. But she said that people voting for "the two non-establishment candidates" — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and billionaire Donald Trump — would bear the brunt of the confusion. That's because voters for those candidates were more likely to have been previously unaffiliated with a political party, or more likely to have wanted to switch parties to vote for their preferred candidate.

Sanders supporters even set up a page back in October raising the alarm about the change-of-party deadline for independents and voters registered with more liberal factions like the Green Party or the Liberal Party.

So far, it seems true that non-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders tend to do better in open primaries, where people can vote in whichever party's primary they choose.

I've yet to come across [a voter registration] that's been maliciously changed. There's always been a legitimate reason.

In the current Republican battle between Trump and Sen. Tex Cruz (R-TX), Trump has done better in open primary contests while Cruz has done better in closed contests, according to a Fox News analysis. And theNew York Times reported that Sanders' statewide victories have been "fueled by his large vote margins among independents," who may be restricted from voting in closed primaries.

And when it comes to New York's complicated voting laws, Sanders supporters seem to be the ones complaining most loudly. Allegations of fraud and willful manipulation of voter registrations in New York have been widespread on the Sanders for President Reddit page, where voters have been posting personal stories of sketchy dealings with their local board of elections.

State Board of Elections official Thomas Connolly told ThinkProgress he's been receiving complaints about alleged manipulations of voter registrations, particularly from Sanders supporters. But he said that each one he's followed up on has been because a mistake on the voter's part — usually because they didn't fully understand New York's complicated election law.

"It really comes down to simply a lack of awareness of the sometimes convoluted nature of New York State election law," he said. "I've yet to come across [a voter registration] that's been maliciously changed. There's always been a legitimate reason."

Fighting For Change, But Going Nowhere

What Connolly said he most wants to convey to frustrated voters is this: He understands, even sympathizes, which their concerns. But he's not in charge of what the law says.

"I understand that people aren't happy," he said. "People aren't happy that New York State has a closed primary. People aren't happy that the deadline is so long, and they say it's unconstitutional, and I say listen, you're not the first person to think this."

I get it. But again, you're yelling at the wrong person.

"I get it," he added. "But again, you're yelling at the wrong person."

If you're unhappy with New York's election law, the right people to yell at are in the state Legislature. And as it turns out, Lerner has been yelling at the state Legislature for years — though to little avail. Every session, she said, there are bills to reform elections, bills to move the deadline to change party registrations, and bills to make primaries more open. But they always fail, every time.

The frustration in Lerner's voice was palpable. She seemed defeated — she doubted that the growing popularity of independent candidates like Sanders and Trump would motivate people to lobby for more accessible elections in New York. But, she said, if people really do want to change the laws, they have to call their legislators — not the board of elections.

"If people actually started to complain to people who could change it, maybe that would work," she said. "Embarrassing the legislators by having outraged voters actually calling their legislators, rather than the board of elections, might actually start to make a difference."

Sometimes my mind is boggled by all the different laws for each individual states (for everything) and yet we are "United". Sheesh. In Ohio, we are able to change party affiliation at the polls on Election Day during primaries. However, Ruth, your article makes a good point about New Yorkers not wanting party crashers, so to speak.

Nevertheless, as adults, those who place value in their right to vote will seek to learn and understand the voting laws of their state. Ahead of time. You must abide by the laws of the land, and if you disagree, petition to the right people for changes. Other than that, you have towork within the parameters of the law.

I am voting absentee this year for the first time in my life and as soon as I knew we would be out of State on vacation during the primary, I looked up the rules for my state and applied for an absentee ballot. If you really care about this election (as DT's kids should) that is one of the first things you do imho. My state is no where near as strict as NY, but there are still rules which I made sure to follow. I am already an affiliated voter so that part is not a worry but I wanted to make sure my vote counted even if I will be in FL enjoying some beach time during our primary on 4/26.

Chisandy.....thank you!!! I am learning so much from this thread. The Parliamentary Democracy is the Canadian political system. Both systems have their pluses and minuses.

As life throws things at us, it reinforces the need/desire to stretch our knowledge beyond emotional/comfort levels into the cold hard facts. I bet everyone on BCO could share a similar history of casual or heartfelt support of things like SBK, until faced with the reality of our own diagnosis, and the knowledge of how they disperse their finances. For most of us now.....details and facts "trump" emotional rhetoric, regardless of the topic. (wink, wink....)

Yes, the system is complicated and everyone, whether candidate or voter, has an obligation to learn and understand the rules. You can't cry foul for lack of knowledge. However, you can work to have rules changed, just not in the middle of the game.

I agree that it is baffling that each state can have widely varying election rules, but that goes for so many aspects of laws and regulations. States rights is a dearly held principle

Anytime there is a perception that the party bosses (either party) are thwarting the will of the people, the party in question is asking for trouble. In recent elections, we can look to Ford vs the upstart Reagan at the 1976 convention and Carter vs Ted Kennedy in 1980 (both elections ending in defeat for the party's pick). The most controversial national conventional in U.S. history is the 1912 Republican Convention in Chicago; where former president, Theodore Roosevelt, came out of retirement to face-off against the incumbent, President William Howard Taft. Roosevelt had handily defeated Taft in the primaries (the first primaries ever), winning nine states to Taft's two, acquiring 278 delegates to his opponent's 48 delegates. The Old Guard was shocked and dismayed by TR challenging Republican Party orthodoxy directly (on the stump, Roosevelt preached outright wealth redistribution and true equality. He even started calling for women's suffrage). Unfortunately (for TR) the bulk of the delegates who would actually select the presidential candidate were chosen through machine-controlled caucuses and shady backroom deals. Taft exploited his entrenched position within the party to secure his own renomination. The night that Taft was chosen as the nominee, Roosevelt and his supporters stormed out of the convention (while singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers') and met in a nearby hall, where they founded a new party to continue the fight for reform. This became the Progressive Party, also known as the Bull Moose Party, and he became (so far) the only third party candidate who actually had a long shot chance winning the presidency. The Democrats were smart and nominated Woodrow Wilson, the progressive governor of New Jersey, who appealed to many of T.R.'s more moderate backers. The Republican votes were split between Taft and Roosevelt, and although TR finished ahead of Taft in the general election, the Democrats took the presidency.

Hydranne, I don't mind your asking me about Kasich. I do not care for him at all. Here's why:

Kasich is not a friend to the middle class.

One of the biggest things that got people in Ohio in an uproar was when, early in his term as governor, he passed an anti-union law affecting 400,000 public workers (police, firefighters, teachers, nurses) stripping them of collective bargaining rights.

[from the AFL-CIO: Collective bargaining is a process in which working people, through their unions, negotiate contracts with employers to determine their terms of employment, including pay, health care, pensions and other benefits, hours, leave, job health and safety policies, ways to balance work and family and more.]

Fortunately, seven months later, 62% of Ohioan voters resoundingly reversed this legislation;the law was repealed.

Regarding abortion: Kasich has signed 11 bills into law that drastically restrict abortion access in Ohio. Now, as it's been stated on this thread, no one is pro abortion. But I am tired of men and government deciding what a woman can do with her body.

Kasich cut funding for education by 1.8 billion dollars and funding for nursing homes by $340 million.

He cut money sent to small towns by nearly 50% across Ohio which has resulted in many local services in these towns being slashed or eliminated, elimination of police and firemen. Cities try to recoup by asking voters to raise local taxes. But hey, Kasich looks good because he can say the state budget is balanced. Doesn't say it's at the expense of the working class.

Under Kasich's reign, taxes were raised for the poor and middle class, yet the top 5% earners in the state got tax breaks.

He is for the wealthy, special interests and not the hard working middle class.

And on a personal note, I just don't like him. He has always come across to me as very arrogant.

One more side note on Theodore Roosevelt. After a spell of the Republican Party hating him, and him hating the Republican Party, a truce was called. Since his popularity was unabated, he was pretty much set to be their presidential candidate in the 1920 election. Had not fate intervened with his death in January of 1919, he would have undoubtedly won and become the first Roosevelt with a third term. (Woodrow Wilson had suffered a massive stroke and was hiding out in the White House with absolutely nothing getting done his last 18 months in office, so whomever the Republicans picked was bound to win).

Sue-

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-and-eric-trump-loyal-offspring-proud-202153319.html

Sue- Gotta watch out for me.. MSM has taught me about FACT CHECK this year.. LOL.....

From the very beginning, I've stated that I am voting for Hillary Clinton for president. After 240 years of having man after man as the leader of the free world, I want to see a woman in the position. Bernie Sanders has never even been on my radar. Really, I am tired of the old white guys running the show. Maybe that's why I like Obama. He doesn't present the sense of entitlement. He married a smart, educated woman. He's young enough to be open minded.

I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans for president as I felt was the best choice, not voting simply for the party. But I have never voted for a woman for president, and I want to! I have in the past been a registered republican. I voted democrat this primary, specifically to cast a ballot for HRC. (I wrote a post about how the other day I had a vision of her in the Oval Room with her feet propped up on the desk making smoke rings with a cigar.) My reasons for discussing Kasich are because I am a life long resident of Ohio, and someone here had asked my opinion.

My husband won't vote for Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton came to our area when he was running for president, dressed like a wolf in sheep's clothing, lied and said he'd support the steelworkers, then got into office and turned his back on them. So Bill lost my husband's vote for Hill way back when. My husband and I do not argue about politics. When we discuss candidates and issues, it's always interesting and fun. We don't always tell each other who we're voting for, I do not know how he cast his primary vote and it doesn't matter. But he knows I'm voting for Hillary

As for Trump's kids, maybe their neglecting to register was in some way intentional if they want to vote Democrat and not for their dad. I can respect that approach, you know, they have their own minds sort of thinking. It's just that it can be *perceived* as not really caring to much about the election, or not thinking it mattered and not really ever discussing politics with their parents or anyone else.

I wasn't going to post here again, but Mrs.M, I just saw your post and thought how interesting it is how two people can see the same thing so differently. You said "Really, I am tired of the old white guys running the show. Maybe that's why I like Obama. He doesn't present the sense of entitlement.". I agree with you about the old white guys, but I couldn't disagree more about Obama not having a sense of entitlement.

I started my career in business in the '70s. We talk today about how women are paid less than men and have to work much harder to achieve the same success; in the '70s and '80s, it was just a fact of life. I saw so many talented women who were appreciated for their hard work, but who were overlooked when it came to advancement, while much less talented men were promoted (and of course, paid much more). I saw young men who were 'chosen' early on in their careers, and given every benefit, every opportunity to shine and who were mentored to success (whether they actually turned out to be any good or not), and I just never saw the same thing happen with young women. I saw men with mediocre talent ride to success on the backs of the much more talented women who worked for them. I saw that over and over and over again. For the first half of my career, I was often the only woman in management, or the most senior. By the second half of my career, things were starting to change and more women were advancing to management and executive positions, but to succeed women still had to work harder and be better at their jobs than their male peers.

So then we come to the 2008 election. There was Hillary, 60 years old, who had patiently waited her turn while her husband took all his opportunities. Finally, she was getting her chance. She was talented and smart and had a lengthy resume with a wide range of experience. And then in walked Obama. A 46 year old wet behind the ears senator who had been a community organizer and a law school lecturer. I thought he had potential - and perhaps could be an excellent candidate in 4 years or 8 years - but at that time he had too little experience for anyone to be able to fairly judge his abilities, and certainly (in my mind) had too little experience for the job of President. But like so many of the men I'd encountered over my career, he was full of confidence and he had a sense of entitlement. Wait his turn? Stay in the Senate a bit longer and get more experience? Allow Hillary her shot? Nope, not for him. Just like so many men I'd encountered over my career, he came in, jumped the queue and stomped over a woman who was much more qualified than he was. Based on that, I had an almost visceral dislike for Obama right from the start, because of what I saw as being his sense of male entitlement.

It's funny looking back. I so supported Hillary in 2008. Now, I see her as the best candidate, and really, the only viable choice, but I am very disappointed in how she has damaged her reputation over the past 7+ years by the things she's done and in how she has handled certain situations. If I were eligible to vote in the U.S., I would have enthusiastically voted for her in 2008; this year, I would be holding my nose and shaking my head when I cast my vote for her.

Speaking of 'if I could vote', although I'm Canadian, it would have been so easy. When I moved down to the U.S. (on an L1A visa), I had to hand in my Ontario driver's license to get my new State license. As I was standing there handing over a foreign license, the DMV agent asked me if I wanted to be added to the voters list. "But I'm Canadian, I'm not eligible to vote." "So you don't want to be added then?" She was actually quite persistent about adding me but my honesty held me back. Based on that experience, and similar experiences from others I know (including my parents, who lived in the U.S. for decades), I wouldn't be surprised if quite a number of people who are not American citizens, whether in the U.S. legally on visas or whether illegal immigrants, are on the voter lists in the U.S.. So personally I think that proof of citizenship should be required to get onto the voter list, and ID should be required to vote. To me, that's just common sense. Yes, voting is a right of all citizens, but there should be a way to ensure that it's only citizens who are voting. I do agree with some of the previous comments that there should be consistency across the country in what is considered a valid ID, and there should be a way that eligible voters can easily and inexpensively (or for free) acquire the necessary ID. For those interested, here's a link to the voter ID requirements for the most recent Canadian election: Elections Canada - ID to Vote This is different from voter registration, which comes first. The most common way to register is on one's taxes, where you certify that you are a Canadian citizen and you authorize Revenue Canada to give your name and relevant information to Elections Canada. Elections Canada also sometimes does door-to-door registration; you need to provide proof of citizenship to get onto the voter rolls. That's pretty important, since Canada has a large and extremely diverse immigrant population (higher as a percent of total population than the U.S.).

I guess Chris Cristi is longer one of Trump's favorites. I can't imagine little Marco as VP.

I saw a small portion of the town hall with the Trump family. Really, Trump's kids came across as very likeable. They were talking about how their dad told them every morning when they were growing up not to smoke or do drugs or alcohol. Donald said he'd seen so many exceptional kids ruin their lives because of addictions. And hey, maybe that's a great tool for parents to use. Tell your kids every, every, every single day not to smoke or do drugs or alcohol. I liked seeing that wisdom side of Trump.

The weakest link of the town hall, tho, was Milania. Several times she looked bored or detached. She's sort of a one-hit number, talking about Donald as having passion and that he'd be a good president. It's like a memorized speech she chants so as not to make any faux pas. She really seems out of her league on the national stage.

Beesie, because I'm white, I don't think I could ever understand the discrimination Obama has encountered thru his life as a black person. I feel that he seized a moment in time when he felt he could win the presidency. Everything was aligning for him. I never held it against him that he didn't wait his turn, so to speak. I also think the MSM helped elect the first black president (rather than the first female)before Ted Kennedy died, to create a tidy little story about the civil rights movement as Kennedy had been there at the beginning of it and he was alive to see the fruition of a black man holding he highest office in the land. Obama started out very early with Oprah's blessing, and when I saw that connection and heard the initial buzz about this black Senator from Illinois, I just absolutely knew he was going to be president even as soon as two years before the election. Also, the Illinois connection between Lincoln and Obama was in Obama's favor from a historical point

As for Clnton, maybe she's made mistakes, but it's because she's out there in the ring "daring greatly", getting the experience she knows is necessary to make voting a woman into the presidency a reality. The U.S. Isn't going to vote in a female newcomer the way they did Obama and Clinton knows that. There was lots of Democratic strategy and deals were made; she would eventually concede and got on the Obama train. In return, he made her Secretary of State, helping her add to her credentials, grooming her for the Presidency. It was give and take with them.

When you're new to the game, you often haven't taken missteps only because of having less experiences. Like Trump. We know how he runs his business, but that is not holding a political office, which he has never done.