The Secretary of the State Has No Business Doing This

100% Agree (4.00 / 1)

This is a tremendously poor idea.

---

by: GrandOleVipers @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 21:33:14 PM UTC

Agree... but then again (0.00 / 0)

Hmmm....It is one thing to inform the public that there are different times in the calendar you get to communicate via your vote different choices, and that in order to have a say in the candidate supported by either of the major parties in which primaries are run, you must register to vote for one party or another (D or R) x days prior to the primary, to be held on Y date.  In order to have a say about other candidates, this registration is not necessary --  other candidates exist for which you may vote in the general election.  Here is how to find out about them.

You may also vote in a primary one way and then vote an entirely different way in the general election.

It is probably unwise to move from the role of "information about choices provider" to "funneler of voters to major party enabler", even with the freedom to do whatever you want - include change your registration back -- after the primary.

IF the parties want to do a "vote with the majors" event  on their own, or with these other groups, fine.  But the SOTS involvement gives this effort the imprimatur of neutrality, which I tend to think it really is not.  I would hope the AG would have an opinion about this -- don't think the SEEC would cover this type of activity -- but we are still waiting for the AG investigation results on the address list database, aren't we?

I would guess the parties are counting on people voting and sticking with the commitment they made in the primary, since that tends to happen.

I do find it interesting that the major parties are  out drumming up voters. Does that mean that there is a widespread lack of faith in the ability of the parties to represent them, or the political process to yield meaningful results?

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 22:03:07 PM UTC

A SOTS press release (0.00 / 0)

I heard second hand about this event and I did not see a description other than Jon's about what is happening, so accepting the notion that SOTS is promoting enrolmment may be inaccurate.  Link, Jon?

The appropriate SOTS role is information providing, not promoting, and the release below is information providing in its stance.  mattw as a registrar sees the numbers of would-be voters who are unregistered who come to the polls to vote and are turned away at elections - like clockwork.

"Now that the petitioning process is complete, I want to make sure voters and local elections officials are fully aware of all the primaries taking place on August 10th," said Secretary Bysiewicz. "Across the state, numerous primaries will be held on both sides of the aisle. Critical issues such as the economy, the environment and our state budget need to be addressed, so I am urging voters to show up at their polling places and cast ballots in the August 10th primaries to choose the general election candidates for November.  Our nearly 900,000 unaffiliated voters in Connecticut should also know that they too can have their voices heard in the primaries by enrolling with the Democratic or Republican party."

Secretary Bysiewicz is reminding Connecticut citizens that the deadline to register to vote by mail is August 5, 2010.  Voting age citizens and 17 year-olds who will turn 18 by the general election can also register in-person at town offices until Monday, August 9th at 12:00 p.m.  Unaffiliated voters face those same deadlines if they wish to enroll with a party in order to vote in the primaries. Polls will be open on Primary Day August 10th from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

source:  http://groups.google.com/group...

Is there any other impact of registering to vote for a particular party, e.g. on candidate funding, obtaining candidate ballot lines. or anything else? I suppose it gives a read of general sentiment -- who is inclined to vote and which party candidate choice they wish to influence at primary time.

By the way, that "vote by mail" registration reference threw me for a loop.  The deadline for mailed-in voter registrations is August 5, not the deadline for the right to "vote by mail".

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:29:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the entire press release (0.00 / 0)

Susan Bysiewicz
Secretary of the State
Connecticut

For Immediate Release:                                                           For more information:
July 7, 2010                                                                           Av Harris: (860) 509-6255
Cell: (860) 463-5939
- Media Advisory -

Bysiewicz Joins State Democratic & Republican Party Chairs, Registrars of Voters to Launch 'Affiliate & Participate' Campaign for August 10th Primaries

WHO:       Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, Democratic State Party Chair Nancy DiNardo, Republican State Party Vice Chair Catherine Marx, Tony Esposito, President of Registrar of Voters Association of CT, Representatives from NAACP, LPRAC, AAAC.

WHAT:     Secretary of the State to hold news conference with state Democratic & Republican Party chairs, others to urge unaffiliated voters to enroll with a major party so they can vote in statewide primaries on August 10, 2010.

WHEN:     Thursday July 8, 2010 at 10:30 A.M.
WHERE:     Office of the Secretary of the State, State Capitol Room 104.

30

Av Harris
Communications Director
Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz
(860) 509-6255 ofc
(860) 463-5939 cell
av.harris@ct.gov
 

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 12:18:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The practical impact of this effort (4.00 / 1)

I speculate that the practical impact of this GOTV for the primaries effort would  be to dilute the impact of the primary's typical concentrate of voters (died-in-the-wool party activists) amd reduce the opportunity to have a great deal of say in the primary results. If the number of non-activists is increased at the polls, the vote will tend to move toward the mainstream.  Both parties may feel that fact will give them greater viability in the fall election.

The beneficiaries are likely to be the more middle-of-the-road candidates.

However, that is not a justification for not encouraging participation.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:43:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some while back (0.00 / 0)

A neighboring town went four rounds on their budget.

The no vote total stayed constant in each of the four rounds. That number didn't change. The only change when the budget passed on the fourth ballot was the turnout for the fourth ballot.

People should always be encouraged to participate and vote and make their vote count. In every election.

Always.

---

by: notcho @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 22:38:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and this is what's wrong (0.00 / 0)

Secretary of the State to hold news conference with state Democratic & Republican Party chairs, others to urge unaffiliated voters to enroll with a major party so they can vote in statewide primaries on August 10, 2010.

This is NOT the roll of government or the SOS. Encourage people to enroll in the process through registration? Yes. Encourage them to vote when given the opportunity? YES! Mention political parties at all? No. Encourage enrollment into one of the major political parties? NO!

Jon's right. This is overstepping her roll and Susan shouldn't have done what they claim is the "WHAT".  

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 20:29:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the same time (0.00 / 0)

Truckloads of people will show up on 8/10, thinking they're members of a party, and be turned away. Any way that you change the process (either to allow people to re-register on the spot or to create open primaries), you're going to either lose the Registrars' Association chair or the party chairs. Informing the public that they have to be affiliated to vote is probably the least offensive of the many options available.

It could be done tastefully or not tastefully, I think it'd be best to reserve judgement until then.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 23:02:10 PM UTC

Comment from new member (4.00 / 1)

Madam SOS has had a flurry of activity since my column on June 27 in the Day of New London,

I do not disagree with the comments made in so much as the "parties" are getting increased membership through the SOS's ham handed program, "affiliate and participate". But, it is the SOS's job to educate voters on how they can participate. I am opposed to the entire closed primary system and for that matter the idea of political parties. As a former card carrying member of the GOP and now a recalcitrant independent I have yet to have someone explain to me why we need political parties? The only benefit I see is preferred ballot access and access to public campaign dollars. Of course the right to assemble and call your self whatever is great. But, why one must be in a political party to cast a vote or receive public dollars to run for office is not only absurd it is un-American.

When there are 900,000 registered voters and climbing, are shut out of the process by two Neanderthal political organizations that are shrinking something is very wrong with the system.

Ben Davol

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 13:39:27 PM UTC

You don't have to be a member of a party. You can be a petitioning candidate. (3.00 / 1)

But that requires a lot of time and effort on the candidate's part.  Eliminating political parties and petition qualifications and allowing any "Tom, Dick and Harry" to put his/her name on a ballot leads to chaos.

The purpose of political parties was that people who shared similar views exercised their First Amendment rights to assemble.  Political parities in theory promote candidates who will represent their philosophy in the election and they help the candidates via manpower and funds to run their campaigns.  In a sense, political parities allowed those who weren't born into wealth to have access to manpower and a fundraising apparatus to help with their campaigns.

The main reason why there are only 2 major political parties is due to our Constitutional winner-take-all system.  James Madison realized after the Constitution was passed that America would be primarily a 2 party system because of this system.  Parliamentary systems are open to multiple parties sharing power if the parties reach a certain percentage of votes, but to change the American system to a parliamentary one would require amending or rewriting the US Constitution, and that is extremely difficult to do.

Per Markos Moulitas, the best way to affect change in our current political system is via primaries.  I agree with him, but I oppose open primaries because those who don't believe in a party's philosophy can unjustly override the the will of the long-standing members.  Why should Republicans dictate to Democrats what candidate should be on their party's ballot and vice-versa.  Unaffiliates should have a time limit on when the can join a party, but maybe not as tight as a voter who is already a member of another party.

The only real solution to our political problems is reigning in Big Money Interests, but with the Citizens United ruling that will be harder to do.

---

by: Larkspur @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 21:06:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whay is the State even involved in Primaries? (0.00 / 0)

Seriously.

These events should be managed and paid for by the political parties themselves. Why are State dollars going towards Primaries?

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 20:34:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On Parties (0.00 / 0)

Political parties are not a necessary component of the democratic process, they merely are there. I think the effectiveness of the party system is self-evident (if they weren't effective then we wouldn't be having the primary issue in the first place). In Connecticut you do not have to be in a political party to cast a vote or receive public dollars. Personally I think the closed primary system has some benefits, it prevents those who are uninterested in the direction of the party or those from the others side from influencing the outcome and direction of an organization they do not care about.

I'll concede that it is a bit unfair that other parties can't or don't have primaries, and I'd favor the ability of other parties (CFL, Green, WFP, etc.) to be able to hold primaries on the same day as everyone else. Alternatively we could always abolish the primary system completely, save taxpayer dollars, and instead of having convention "endorsements" we can have convention nominations.

All that said, I also think there is a bit of a fine line to be towed between encouraging people to join parties and informing them that they can't vote in these primaries if they do not do so. Ultimately I'd hope the campaigns themselves along with the news media would be the ones to exercise the utmost vigilance there. Thanks for keeping people informed.

Blog | Twitter

---

by: Matt Zagaja @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 21:10:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shut out vs. opted out (3.00 / 1)

If parties charged something to participate, then you might have a point. But you can take a part in party politics for free!

I had a great conversation with a man who calls himself a Republican Socialist today. He wants to confiscate income from wealthy people and provide improved services to the lower income levels. He joined the GOP because he thought, on the local level, he could make a bigger difference there. But now, in his words, he "doesn't want to die as a Republican. So maybe he'll become a D. Maybe WFP. Maybe Unaffiliated. Who knows?

You have to live in Groton to vote in Groton, you have to be a member of a union to vote in a union election, you have to be a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary. There are lots of silly restrictions on voting, but affiliating is entirely up to you.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:31:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And as a factual matter (3.50 / 2)

There are fewer than 900,000 unaffiliated voters, and their share of the overall Connecticut electorate has been declining.

Just as my opinion, we need political parties to tell us something about what candidates stand for absent detailed information to the contrary. Democrats are pro-choice and like unions and dislike wars of aggression unless we hear otherwise (and forums like this exist to emphasize the exceptions to those guidelines, and to propose new guidelines.)

Maybe Jarjura would be a good Comptroller, except that we know he's kind of a bigot and that he hired a former Republican governor, so forget it. Absent those two points of data, he's just another Democrat. It's easier to note exceptions than to piece together a quilt of data to answer every curiosity.

It is a tragic shame that so few people want to really wade into what each candidate thinks about everything, but we learn based on comparing new facts to other things we already know. Changing this tendency in our society would be a much bigger project than taking over a political party or forming a new one and teaching people what that new organization stands for. Political parties are a market mechanism for people with limited time or attention spans to comprehend and engage meaningfully in complex policy issues in our society.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:48:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well done (0.00 / 0)

I agree that there is a fine line between providing information and advocating. But, I also believe in giving credit where it is due. The SOS has now set forth a full scale education campaign on getting people involved in the primaries. Although it should have been done sooner her recent efforts should be recognized.

More importantly is the need to open the primaries. Im considering taking up the cause after the reaction to my column in The Day. I will advise if I move from thought to action.

Cheers

---

by: bdavol @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 18:59:00 PM UTC

the other thing (0.00 / 0)

is that I get the sense that they only did the press conference because various media outlets were zinging her for not doing more to get the word out.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 20:04:55 PM UTC