Jump to content

Do you have trouble maintaining an election?

OOO

By OOO,
in Tongue-Tied Lightning

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Mr. Kinsley

Mr. Kinsley

Posted
Posted
I couldn't vote because I'm a registered independent and CT has a closed primary, which means I can't vote for either side.

Are you sure? CA lets undeclared voters vote in the Dem primary (due to GOP party rules not letting them). We just have to ask for the Dem ballot at the poll.

 

I looked up your election laws and it looks like you should be able to-

 

Sec. 9-431. Eligibility to vote at primary. (a) No person shall be permitted to vote at a primary of a party unless (1) he is on the last-completed enrollment list of such party in the municipality or voting district, as the case may be, or (2) if authorized by the state rules of such party filed pursuant to section 9-374, he is an unaffiliated elector in the municipality or voting district, as the case may be, provided if two or more such parties are holding primaries on the same day in such municipality or voting district, whether for the same offices or different offices, such unaffiliated elector may vote in the primary of only one such party. Such state party rules may authorize unaffiliated electors to vote for some or all offices to be contested at its primaries.

 

You might want to call (860) 509 6100 to double-check.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 538
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Mrs. Peel

Mrs. Peel

Posted
Posted

I did call and they told me I would have to register for a party, and the cutoff date to register in my town was Thursday.

 

Here's one of many local articles addressing the subject:

http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/r...eld/28006.shtml

 

 

Jan 25, 2008

THE PRIMARY: Interest brings new members to parties

 

People are partying up for the primary.

 

Some 40 registered Ridgefield voters took the few minutes needed to change their registration and affiliate with a party since the start of January when news and talk of Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina began to direct attention to Connecticut

Link to post
Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj

bjorn_skurj

Posted
Posted
In principle I don't have a problem with political parties (which are, after all, private organizations) having their own rules to determine who their candidates are. However, the fact that it's impossible to be elected to anything other than local offices if you aren't the candidate of one of the two major parties make their nomination process more of a public concern.

Then check the box on the form. I don't know what it's like in other states, but that's all you have to do to be in a party in New York. No fees, no mandatory appearances at picnics, nothing like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mountain bed

mountain bed

Posted
Posted
I don't think you're allowed to vote Democrat in W. Virginia.

I know your joking, but:

 

479pxrobertbyrdofficiallu7.jpg

The distinguished gentleman from WV (D). :thumbup

Link to post
Share on other sites
mpolak21

mpolak21

Posted
Posted
I couldn't vote because I'm a registered independent and CT has a closed primary, which means I can't vote for either side.

 

In other terrifying news, Huckabee has won all delagates in West Virginia.

Come on, A-man, what's the matter with you people down there???

 

From my understanding and this comes from a five minute lunchline discussion with my republican friend Brian, the McCain supporters were actually encouraged to vote for Huckabee who had a better chance of beating of Romney (at that time McCain's biggest rival), to block Mitt from winning the delegates. Dems don't get to vote until May, so I had to sit this one out, I've actually never voted with anything line before in a primary, looks like that might change this year.

 

About what I expected today, it's disappointing Obama lost California by such a margin and I was surprised he didn't come closer in Massachusetts.

 

--Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
mpolak21

mpolak21

Posted
Posted
I don't think you're allowed to vote Democrat in W. Virginia.

 

:P. Mrs. Peel, I'll have you know that as long as the Democrat proudly carries around his or her NRA membership card, we are allowed to vote for that candidate. Actually the significant majority of West Virginians are Democrats (we even went with Dukakis in 1988), but Bush was been able to appeal to a lot of the swing voters in 2000 and 2004.

 

--Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
solace

solace

Posted
Posted
He will come out of today with a bunch more "states", so while that doesn't really mean anything delegate wise, I think he can use that as a good talking point.

 

oh winning a majority of the states, even the less populous ones is nothing to sneeze at... he's also less than 15,000 total votes behind Hillary in all 22 primaries/caucus held today, which says a lot, especially in terms of superdelegates, etc. :)

 

New Mexico is super close right now.. even if he loses that, a 13 to 9 spread of the 22 states up for grabs today is huge in terms of momentum. voters don't pay that close attention to delegates, so it'll be a huge boost for him in the upcoming other primaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kidsmoke

kidsmoke

Posted
Posted
oh winning a majority of the states, even the less populous ones is nothing to sneeze at... he's also less than 15,000 total votes behind Hillary in all 22 primaries/caucus held today, which says a lot, especially in terms of superdelegates, etc. :)

 

New Mexico is super close right now.. even if he loses that, a 13 to 9 spread of the 22 states up for grabs today is huge in terms of momentum. voters don't pay that close attention to delegates, so it'll be a huge boost for him in the upcoming other primaries.

 

Yes, and let's not forget that he's been gaining ground steadily. I look for that to continue. CA didn't surprise me....I think he made a very, very respectable showing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj

bjorn_skurj

Posted
Posted
They just called CA for HRC. :ohwell

Don't lose heart. The delegate race is still monkey's-bung tight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gogo

gogo

Posted
Posted

The California race was called for Clinton weeks ago, based on the large numbers of early and absentee voters, who tend to be older, and women, and were expected to go heavily in Hillary's favor. I'd like a breakdown of what the split was just on voters who voted yesterday.

 

They are talking about record turnout all over California yesterday, and some precincts even ran out of ballots, in part due to the rule that allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in the democratic primary.

 

I think California's delegate count is going to be a pretty close split. This is from an article in the SF Chronicle on Sunday:

 

On Tuesday, about two-thirds of the Democratic delegates will be awarded according to the share of the vote that Clinton and Obama receive in each district. Another third will be awarded according to their share of the statewide vote, giving a statewide winner an advantage.

 

Hitting certain thresholds in each district offers a chance to pick up an extra delegate. A candidate who wins 15 percent of the vote automatically gets one delegate. After that, it becomes even more arcane.

 

The arithmetic of proportional representation shows why it will be so difficult for Clinton or Obama to gain an advantage.

 

Districts get delegates based on the Democratic turnout in the last two presidential elections. They range from three in a Bakersfield district to six in San Francisco.

 

In districts with an even number of delegates, Obama and Clinton stand a good chance of splitting evenly unless they blow away their rival.

 

Take a district with four delegates, like San Jose. Clinton or Obama has to get a big win, capturing 63 percent of the vote, to get a 3-to-1 delegate advantage, campaign experts said. If the winner falls just shy of that threshold, winning say 62 percent, he or she splits the delegates 2-2 with the loser who got just 38 percent of the vote, because the winner failed to breach the threshold.

 

Districts with an odd number of delegates might produce an advantage, but it's still tough.

 

Take a district with five delegates, like Walnut Creek. A candidate only has to get 30.1 percent of the vote to win two delegates. That means a candidate that wins 69.9 percent of the vote picks up just one extra delegate for a 3-to-2 split.

 

So of California's 441 delegates, Clinton automatically gets 129, as the winner of the statewide popular vote. There are another 71 superdelegates, who aren't pledged to anyone. And the remaining 241 could easily be split right down the middle.

 

 

edit: It's not quite right to say that the superdelegates aren't pledged to anyone. They're not tied to any one candidate by virture of the primary results, but many of them have in fact endorsed one candidate or the other: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/su...egate-list.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beltmann

Beltmann

Posted
Posted
Considering what the polls looked like a couple of weeks ago, it seems clear to me that things are swinging towards Obama.

Speeches like

ought to keep things swinging his way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
mpolak21

mpolak21

Posted
Posted
props to the name of this thread. made me laugh very much so.

 

i've been following the coverage of this election for a while....the way it's being covered (especially on the dems) is pissing me off, but i get the feeling that's because the media just sucks.

 

Yeah I didn't think it get much worse than 2004 but somehow they've managed...

 

--Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...