I don't get it, according to Wiki Arizona has "semi-open" primaries, you can register or change your party affiliation on election day.

I didn't realize that the primary elections are paid for, at least in part by taxpayers. Seems to me that the party ought to fund the election of it's candidate. It's not as though they don't have the money. I've learned a lot about the US election system over the past few cycles and the more I learn the more bizarre it seems.

Columbus wrote:

You'd think in The World's Greatest DemocracyTM we'd have figured out how to allow people who want to vote to have their votes counted.

Why would you think that the Democratic party is the world's greatest democracy? It is a private PAC. As such, they do have a few rules about who gets to help pick the Democratic nominee. Those rules existed before Sanders threw his hat into the ring.

Unfortunately for candidates like Sanders, their supporters are commonly not all that well informed. Which is why those Arizonans were not qualified to vote in their own home state's primary.
Tom

The issue is beyond just being informed. Many democrats were "changed" to "independent" or "tea party" without any explanation. These people had to use a temporary ballot which would allow confirmation of their correct status. With the excessive wait, those in poor health, or with work commitments lose their voice in the election. Those with limited transportation are also affected. It's classic voter suppression.

Many democrats were "changed" to "independent" or "tea party" without any explanation.

Really? By who? For what? Did that impact Sanders more than Clinton?
Got a link? I don't know much about Arizona.
Tom

Columbus wrote:

Many democrats were "changed" to "independent" or "tea party" without any explanation.

Really? By who? For what? Did that impact Sanders more than Clinton?
Got a link? I don't know much about Arizona.
Tom

It's not known by whom, or who it impacted more. Much of Clinton's support was early voting, which is why her lead kept dropping as the results came in. Older voters turned away would have impacted Clinton, while younger voters would have impacted Sanders.

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples- ... a-primary/

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/what_ha ... ar_reason/

Columbus wrote:

You'd think in The World's Greatest DemocracyTM we'd have figured out how to allow people who want to vote to have their votes counted.

Why would you think that the Democratic party is the world's greatest democracy? It is a private PAC. As such, they do have a few rules about who gets to help pick the Democratic nominee. Those rules existed before Sanders threw his hat into the ring.

I was referring, tongue in cheek, to how the US bills itself on the world stage.

And I was referring to shrinking the number of polling stations.

Apparently it was a massive fuck up, and not some nonsense about 'Sanders voters'...

PHOENIX - Phoenix mayor Greg Stanton wrote an open letter to United States attorney general Loretta Lynch requesting an investigation into Tuesday's issues for Arizona voters in the presidential preference election.

"This is unacceptable anywhere in the United States, and I am angry that County elections officials allowed it to happen in my city," he wrote.

Critics have largely placed blame on Maricopa County recorder Helen Purcell.

Stanton's strongly worded letter highlighted the decrease in the number of polling locations, noting that the 60 locations available to voters Tuesday were 70 and 85 percent fewer than those available in 2012 and 2008, respectively.

It also said that the county "distributed fewer polling locations to parts of the county with higher minority populations."

Stanton's letter said that his request "comes on the heels of consistent activity that has created a culture of voter disenfranchisement in this state," citing various numbers showing how many Arizona ballots have been discarded in recent elections.

http://www.12news.com/news/politics/sta ... r/98840965

I should have been more specific to help avoid confusion.

Unfortunately for candidates like Sanders, their supporters are commonly not all that well informed. Which is why those Arizonans were not qualified to vote in their own home state's primary.
Tom

Yes, it's true bringing new people into participation in politics will have a few bumps in the road.

I suppose making sure there are plenty of bumps will tend to suppress voter participation, if that is a worthy goal.

Willie71 wrote:

Columbus wrote:

Many democrats were "changed" to "independent" or "tea party" without any explanation.

Really? By who? For what? Did that impact Sanders more than Clinton?
Got a link? I don't know much about Arizona.
Tom

It's not known by whom, or who it impacted more. Much of Clinton's support was early voting, which is why her lead kept dropping as the results came in. Older voters turned away would have impacted Clinton, while younger voters would have impacted Sanders.

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples- ... a-primary/

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/24/what_ha ... ar_reason/

It impacts the public most, as it seems it was their votes that are not recorded.

Please I suggest, but not ask the US people to vote for our good man Sanders

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

no better proof of the US abandoning democracy. We vote an entire nation of 32 million in a period of a 18 hours across 5 times zones.

And Australia votes EVERY SINGLE PERSON OF VOTING AGE in about the same time period across 4 time zones( voting is mandatory ).

What the fuck is wrong with you guys

If I knew that I'd be a rich man.

Macdoc wrote:

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

no better proof of the US abandoning democracy. We vote an entire nation of 32 million in a period of a 18 hours across 5 times zones.

And Australia votes EVERY SINGLE PERSON OF VOTING AGE in about the same time period across 4 time zones( voting is mandatory ).

What the fuck is wrong with you guys

There seems to be several things like this where there are obvious fixes available, yet there's not much action on fixing them.

Apparently they 'system' is working out fine for someone.

I can't remember ever spending more than a minute waiting to vote. They did recently move my voting place from two blocks to about a ten minute drive away, but it's a big area I'm in.

This election, and the past few as well, have shone a bright light on the many problems with the US electoral system. Bernie seems to be the only one talking about it.

Onyx8 wrote:I can't remember ever spending more than a minute waiting to vote. They did recently move my voting place from two blocks to about a ten minute drive away, but it's a big area I'm in.

Same here. Federal, Provincial or Municipal, it takes me 15 minutes to drive to the polling place, vote and come home. And if I'm working my employer is required by law to ensure that I have a 4 hour window to vote.

Here you can vote anywhere where there is a polling station. They are in rail stations and petrol stations as well.
What gets me that there are so many different systems of voting. There should be one system with everyone voting on the same day and stop all this horse trading. Is that so difficult?

The current Powers That Be are beholden to the system as it is.

It would take some kind of revolution to establish a rational election process.

proudfootz wrote:The current Powers That Be are beholden to the system as it is.

It would take some kind of revolution to establish a rational election process.

This is a nice conspiracy but there isn't one 'system'.

Almost every state has different systems. Sometimes different parties within states themselves have different systems. Most people think Iowa's system is a steaming pile but Iowan's think those are attempts to get them to abandon tradition or something gibberish.

GT2211 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:The current Powers That Be are beholden to the system as it is.

It would take some kind of revolution to establish a rational election process.

This is a nice conspiracy but there isn't one 'system'.

Almost every state has different systems. Sometimes different parties within states themselves have different systems. Most people think Iowa's system is a steaming pile but Iowan's think those are attempts to get them to abandon tradition or something gibberish.

It's just people who benefit from doing things a fucked up way who don't want to lose those benefits.

Yes, it is nice for those who benefit - sucks for everyone else.

Bernie is not going to win the nomination.

However....

He is going to support Clinton in the general, AND he has exposed a very great sea-change between generations. Millennials in the US are not opposed to socialism, and positively embrace social democracy.

Which some of us already knew, but it's nice to see it confirmed. In 2024, when the Millennials will be voting in enough numbers to silence the boomers, Presidential Candidate Julian Castro had better run a Bernie Sanders style campaign.

Hilary should make him her running mate.