Re: the alleged voter fraud in Nevada-
Is there any rational reason why new voters should be asked to declare their party when they register? Voter registration drives are the healthy by-products of political campaigns. The registrars are likely to be enthusiastic partisans, and the tempation to toss out new voters for the other guy will always be there.
Not every state makes new voters declare a party when they register. I know from experience that Washington and Texas don’t do it. In Texas, you effectively declare your party by voting in one primary or the other. Your party affiliation doesn’t appear on your registration form or your voter card. I’ve done some voter registration for MoveOn.org, and for all I know, I did nothing but register Republicans. I had no opportunity to throw out Republicans, because I didn’t know who they were. It seems like a good system.
Am I missing something obvious?
On North Carolina state income tax returns, the filer can check off a $1 donation for campaign financing. The overall amount checked off is divided among the parties based on registration. Thus, the party registration does have practical consequences.
Most states have closed primaries in which only people registered in the party may vote. This is generally a good thing, but it means party affiliation has to be part of the registration process.
As a matter of fact, Washington State just switched to the closed primary system, so I assume voter registration cards there now do (or will soon) ask for party.
Lemuel, that’s a good answer. But Texas effectively has closed primaries as well- you can’t vote in both.
I suppose that I could decide in any election that my desire to wreak havok in the other party’s primary is greater than my desire to vote in my own, and our system makes that a little easier. I could do so without officially changing my party registration. But this seems like a pretty small benefit, compared with the threat of partisan fraud in registration.
Lemuel - you know Washington State switched because the Supreme Court told it to, right? California’s int he same boat.
Ted, that’s not a closed primary. That’s an “limited open” primary system. A primary in which you can vote for anyone of any party is called a “blanket” or “open” primary.
Truly closed primaries require that you have declared your party in advance, and it’s on that basis that you receive a ballot.
Clearly, Ted is not thinking creatively. All he needed to do was to dress preppy (not ironic preppy - real preppy) and register people at the local affluent mall. He could then have been assured of registering mostly Republicans, and he could confidently shred the docs with little fear of having disenfranchised Dems.
Or was this not his point?
I respectfully disagree. It’s very common for one party to have a contested primary for an office while the other does not, so large numbers of people crossing party lines to vote seems quite likely.
And the issue isn’t wreaking havoc, but simply a genuine preference for one or the other candidate. if primaries are open to all voters, you’ve effectively moved to a system of nonpartisan elections, IMHO a very bad thing — but that would be anotehr discussion.
Anyway, if the question is “why is it done this way” and not “why should it be done this way” I think party primaries are the main reason.
Aprael - yep, well aware. My understanding of the decision is that the Court found it was unconstitutional for the state to require open primaries, and that it was the decision of the aprties themselves to take the opportunity to move to closed primaries.
The California case is different, IIRC — they currently have closed primaries but prop. 42, on the ballot this fall, would effectively move to a non-partisan system.
And why, in Florida, should party affiliation be printed on the outside of the envelope for the absentee ballots?
I strongly suspect that the parties prefer to have it this way; they can get a list of everyone who has registered in the party immediately after the registration deadline for the election and target them for donations/mailings/GOTV.
And why, in Florida, should party affiliation be printed on the outside of the envelope for the absentee ballots?
I don’t know why Ted is so dubious about the likelihood of malicious crossover voting. I’ve done it myself. The next paragraph is recycled from a post two years ago (10/5/02) on my site:
“When I lived in Alabama in 1992, I asked for a Democratic primary ballot and voted for Jerry Brown. Alabama voted quite late in the primary season, and it was obvious by then that Buchanan and Brown had no chance of beating the front-runners, Bush and Clinton. (All the rest had already fallen by the wayside.) I voted for Brown just to make Clinton’s primary victory that tiny bit less impressive, which I thought would have a minuscule but still useful effect in making him less likely to be elected once he was nominated. If I had been a Democrat, I would have asked for a Republican ballot and voted for Buchanan for the same reason. If I had been a Perot voter, I would have had to decide whether I despised Bush or Clinton more, since Alabamans are allowed to vote in either primary, but not both. Rightly or wrongly, I thought that decreasing Clinton’s margin of victory would be more effective than increasing Bush’s. (I wonder what a statistician or political scientist would say about that?)”
I didn’t mention it in my post, but I also recommended negative voting to any of my then-students at the University of Alabama who were (a) Democrats unenthusiastic about Clinton, (b) Republicans unenthusiastic about Bush, or © Perot voters. No reason why any of them should have to stay home on Primary Day. Of course, I carefully concealed which of these groups included me. I don’t know how many took up the suggestion, though I was told “that’s really cold” by one uncynical youth.
“I don’t know why Ted is so dubious about the likelihood of malicious crossover voting. I’ve done it myself.”
Maybe the most famous example of this was George Wallace’s win in the 1972 Michigan Democratic primary, with the enthusiastic support of large numbers of people who were Republicans any day but primary day.
The only way to avoid this type of dirty trick, short of doing away with primaries, is to require registration by party.
For what it’s worth, requiring voters to declare a party when registering does not squelch all crossover voting. In 2000, I reregistered as a Republican so I could vote for McCain over Bush. This was not an attempt at sabotage. I reasoned: Since the Republican candidate would have some chance of winning, I had an interest in who the candidate was. I was trying to hedge my bets: McCain would have made a better president than Bush.
Are you missing something obvious you ask? Well, try as I might, I can’t fathom why the American voter registration process is so difficult. Why there isn’t one office that oversees the registration of voters and runs federal elections. Even the idea that there are different kinds of voting machines in each poll seems strange to me.
Up here, this whole process is handled <a href=”http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ins&document=index&dir=reg&lang=e&textonly=false”pretty efficiently, and non-politically. For me that’s the biggest hang up about the American system: the involvement of political parties in what should be an independant process.
(Although here in Canada, political canvassers can facilitate registration, there’s no declaration of party affiliation or anything like that)
“The only way to avoid this type of dirty trick, short of doing away with primaries, is to require registration by party.”
But, seeing as you can register as the opposition party with no problem, registration prevents nothing.
“The only way to avoid this type of dirty trick, short of doing away with primaries, is to require registration by party.”
But, seeing as you can register as the opposition party with no problem, registration prevents nothing.
“The only way to avoid this type of dirty trick, short of doing away with primaries, is to require registration by party.”
But, seeing as you can register as the opposition party with no problem, registration prevents nothing.
Sorry…screwy link actually goes to the Elections Canada website.
But, seeing as you can register as the opposition party with no problem, registration prevents nothing.
In states with closed primaries, there is typically a rather long interval (sometimes as muchas a year, I think, certainly several months) between the time you register as a member of a party and the time you become eligible to vote in its primaries. So it actually does prevent the kind of situations Rea described, since it’s unlikely the candiddates in the primary will be known that far in advance.
Ted’s absolutely right. This is a practice that ought to be done away with as it obviously creates opportunities for fraud. If parties desperately want to hold primaries, there are pretty straightforward solutions for that.
The situation in WA now requires that voters in primaries select one of several ballots, which reflects either the party for which the voter wishes to cast his/her candidate votes, or “non-partisan”, which permits voting only for candidates for offices having no party designation (and disallows voting for partisan candidates). Voter registration requires no statement of party affiliation.
Chris: The short answer is: operating elections is a reserved power of the states.
And there’s nothing “difficult” about it: go here, fill out the form, and mail it in. It works in 48 of 50 states (ND doesn’t have voter registration, and WY and NH don’t accept it for various reasons).
Thanks Chris…I went and had a look.
Phew! Here in Canada you can show up on election day with two pieces of ID and vote. Or you can register by ticking a box on your tax return and your info is forwarded to Elections Canada.
At any rate, I noticed on the US form that several states ask for your race or ethnic group. The hair on my neck stood up when I saw that. It reminds me of my wife’s South African birth certificate that identifies her as “white.”
What on earth is that information used for? demographics I suppose. Although it seems that a preponderance of southern states request this while others instruct you to leave it blank.
Creepy.
Chris C: It says in the instructions area of that national voter reg thing that some states request race to administer the Federal Voting Rights Act. It would make some sense that Southern states would be the ones most likely to have problems in this area requiring monitoring. I’m sorry you find ways of doing things that differ from your expectations creepy. There are huge differences in the way the US political system and parliamentary systems worked which are often disguised by the fact that both are referred to as democratic.
Political parties function very differently. In many races they do not select the candidates, that’s what the primaries do. Frankly I prefer a system in which only people registered as a particular party can vote in that party’s primaries. The way Washington state did it this year, where you didn’t declare a party on registering, but when you decided what section of the ballot to fill out, makes a certain amount of sense, but many people found it very confusing.
MKK
I’ve registered in three locations- Massachusetts, New York and Washington DC- and all three ask you to check off a party or as an independent. (You can be a green in DC!) But being an independent usually meant that you couldn’t vote in any of the primaries. But switching is okay- my father switched to Rep. in Mass. to vote for McCain in the 2000 primaries, and then switched back to Dem. As a result he has received a dozen “signed” photographs of GeeDubya and Laura this year. We take comfort that he is doing his small part to empty the GOP coffers. He shows them off at the MoveOn events my mom hosts.
I’ve never understood why the party system is so built into the governmental election system in the United States. I grew up in Canada, and it always struck me as ridiculous that in the US the government has a role in choosing the candidates that the parties will run. Besides being unnecessary governmental intrusion, it allows the parties to slough off the cost of their primaries onto the taxpayers.
In Canada, where the party system is broken in quite different ways than it is in the US, the government runs only the actual elections. The parties themselves are responsible for choosing their candidates and leaders, by whatever means they choose. If you are a member of the party (which is something you and the party sort out, and usually involves paying some small annual fee, just enough to discourage people from signing up on a lark to muck with them) then you have some sort of voice in who gets selected, through methods of varying degrees of democracy.
This sort of system has at least two advantages. One I’ve mentioned already, having the parties pay for their own damn primaries. The other is more significant — by not registering as part of a given party, the ability to craft exquisitely gerrymandered districts is greatly reduced. One of the few things I agree with the Economist about w/rt US politics is that gerrymandered districts is doing real damage to democracy.
Jonathan, you make some good points.
Laws around internal party procedures, including the requirement to hold primaries, date mostly from the Progressive era. The goal was to prevent party leaders from handpicking candidates. In this it has succeeded, tho I would not argue that the replacement of support from party leadership with money & cleberity as key factors in getting on the ballot is an advance for democracy.
Well you left out the apology, although I must commend your candor. Not everyone would want to admit working for MoveOn.
By the way, those interested in another possibility on this story should look at my latest post.
A related issue is that the party nomination process in America is subject to state and federal regulation based on civil rights concerns—in the early 20th century, only whites could vote in the Democratic party primaries in the South, and since the South was a one-party region this effectively disenfranchised blacks (even beyond poll taxes and literacy tests). Open and semi-open primaries were designed and adopted in part to counter this phenomenon.
This coopting of parties into the formal system—the “public utility” model, as it has been dubbed by political scientists—has led to the further entrenchment of the existing parties, along with other institutional advantages (most notably preferred ballot status or lower qualifying petition requirements and/or fees in many states).
WA may not keep its new system — the WA Grange are supporting the very bogus Louisiana system — top two in the primary, no matter what party, go on to general election.
I’ve voted in WA, GA, and CA — there’s really nothing in any of the three (Georgia and WA are pretty much the same — choose your party ballot at the primary door) to keep crossover voting from happening. I did it against Reagan in California for the primary and then re-registered as a Dem (it doesn’t matter for the general election, but matters for money) the next day. What the current WA system does do is prevent a person from being able to vote negatively and positively at the same time, while not having to be affiliated with any one party past that election.
BTW — I got a signed card from W and Laura, too, and I have no idea why — I’ve never been registered Republican at my address, I’m college faculty, belong to a union, and donate to Amnesty International, public radio, and a couple of conservation groups. What mailing list did they buy?
Why declare a party? I’ll bet that the SOBs who ran the scam “persuaded” the victims that they had to.
The people who want party identification are the parties themselves. If the parties know which voters are identified as Democrats or Republicans, they can be more accurate (and therefore cost effective) than if they don’t. So there is in fact a justification for good-government types that party ID is valuable information.
But when you’re forced to declare a party, “Independent” or “Non-Partisan” are still legitimate parties, right? That’s how it is in Pennsylvania, I think.
The fun thing is working at the polls during a hotly contested closed primary and explaining to people who registered Independent why they can’t vote.
We’re now required to declare a party to vote in the primary in Washington, unfortunately (due to a court decision).
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review