From KLAS-TV in Las Vegas:
On voter registration forms, does one have to specify which political party they are affiliated with?
Well, you don't have to but if you don't, you can vote in primaries. Not that that means much - my parents switched to Democrat for a while so they could vote against Clinton in a primary.
Targeted votor registration is a common tactic of both sides though. Yeah, its wrong when the Republicans do it: its also wrong when the Democrats do it.
One does not have to, but there are good reasons for doing so. It is encouraged, actually.
The instructions for the California voter's registration says:
It sounds like a bunch of people really need to go to jail for this. I will be saddened if the US does not punish this sort of activity extremely harshly.
Does anyone know what the penalty is for tampering with an election?
Ah, I see. Thanks all!
Hmm, what if all the Democrats and Republicans switched which parties they're affiliated with just so they could pick really crappy candidates for the others in the primaries. :tongue2:
That's really horrid! Targeting registration is one thing, where you just seek out potential members of one party or the other to get them signed up...I'm not fond of the idea, but it's not illegal. But, what those Votes Outreach people did I hope is considered illegal, since they accepted the registrations and defrauded people of their right to vote by making them think they had registered and then not submitting the forms!
Russ_Waters...what your parents did of switching parties to vote AGAINST a candidate is the reason primaries are closed to party members. The reasoning is you want the BEST candidate each party has to offer, but there are people who would purposely vote for the weakest candidate of the opposing party to reduce the competition for their own party's candidate. If enough people do this, you wind up with the two weakest candidates running rather than the two strongest. I don't know if that's what your parents did, your mentioning that just reminded me of the reason for closed primaries...your parents may have had more honorable intentions, thinking there was a better candidate than Clinton in the democratic race, so wanted to give that one a shot. And since Clinton ultimately got the democratic vote, their motives don't really matter. (I'm trying to make it very clear this isn't personal.)
I've never declared a party myself, which does frustrate me that I can't vote in the primaries. I am still allowed to vote on any referendum type issues that are included during those elections, but have to vote on an issues only ballot. I'm the sort of person who wishes I could vote in both primaries to vote for the best candidate of each party, but realize there are others who would abuse such a system (sadly, I've seen them on other boards, rabidly bashing the opposing party rather than considering whether there are any good ideas worth adopting even if the overall policies are not desireable to them...both Republicans and Democrats do this).
The links at the site that Tsunami linked to don't seem to stay constant.
As of this posting:
Link to October 12 story - the original story Tsu quoted.
Link to October 13 story - this continuation is where Tsu's link currently goes.
I wouldn't be surprised if these links shifted again by the time most people read this if there is a further continuation for October 14.
Quotes from the October 13 story:
There is an error here—the real http://www.americavotes.org/index.cfm [Broken] is an explicitly non-partisan organization (though the coalition that organized it is made up of left-leaning groups).
Voter's Outreach of America has been connected to Nathan Sproul, head of Phoenix AZ political consulting firm Sproul and Associates. Sproul is also a former Arizona state Republican Party executive director, and former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition. Sproul and Associates, which has received around $500k from the Republican National Committee for voting drives, is responsible for apparently dodgy registration drives in several states (at least Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and an earlier effort in Oregon). While there are no allegations of registration shredding in these other cases, there are numerous reports by librarians that Sproul and Associates presented themselves as "America Votes" when requesting the use of library grounds for voter registration, and various complaints by their temp employees.
Here's http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0921/local/stories/02local.htm [Broken].
Actually, IIRC, there was a really good candidate running against Clinton (sorta like the McCain vs Bush thing) and they actually would have voted for the guy for president had he gotten that far. Its not quite as sinister as I made it sound (its funnier that way).
Moonbear, you're right with one important caveat: parties don't necessarily pick the strongest candidate, they pick the one that is strong but represents their interests like a sock-puppet. That's the reason McCain isn't president today: the party topedoed his campaign because even though he would have cleaned-up in the general election, he didn't toe the party line.
plover - good to know: targeting specific groups for registration is perfectly legal (if a little unseemly), but misrepresenting who you work for is fraud.
Updates from the same news site. (Their links seem to be stabilized.)
Voter Fraud Allegations Headed to Court (Oct. 14)
Judge Denies Re-opening Voter Registration (Oct. 15)
From the October 15 story:
The judge flip-flopped!!! :surprised
When she got back to her chambers, there were pictures on her desk of her at Burning Man kissing a guy in a cactus outfit! Then the phone rang and Karl Rove's voice said, "If you ever want to see your goldfish Nolo again, you'll drop this case!" This was followed without pause by a dial-tone, as if the caller had been overriding the regular phone line!
... well, someone had to start a conspiracy theory... :tongue2:
Separate names with a comma.