New Haven Independent

Posted by: anya | February 5, 2008 10:55 PM

Quick note: Part of the view attributed to the Registrar of Voters is wrong:

"She attributed it to people not realizing they couldn't switch from being independent voters to registered Democrats or Republicans less than three months before Tuesday's "Super Tuesday" presidential primary..."

In fact, if you're registered to vote but not affiliated with a party, you can get on the party list simply by re-registering by the normal voter registration deadline. It's only people who are already affiliated with a party and want to change party affiliation who have to wait three months. You can find the relevant sections of CT voting law (secs. 9-54 through 9-59) at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap143.htm#Sec9-23a.htm

Posted by: robn | February 6, 2008 9:01 AM

1) CT and everywhere else in the US should have open primaries and NOBODY should be turned away from a poll for any reason.
2) Hand filled provisional ballots can record a persons vote and their identity can be verified later.
3) Every vote should have paper verification (whether or not its run through an optiacal scanner for quick results) and there should be federal law automatically REQUIRING hand recounts after an election. (If our society can impose mandatory jury duty, we can do the same for vote counting.)

Posted by: Donna | February 6, 2008 12:39 PM

I disagree with the notion that anyone should be able to vote in a primary. Primaries exist so that party members can choose their candidates. I don't want Republicans to be able to show up and have a say in who the Democratic candidate is--and vice versa.

They SHOULD, however, make the rules perfectly clear when someone registers to vote. There is NO REASON for anyone in this state to be unaffiliated. There's no benefit whatsoever. Registrars should be required to tell people what they are giving up (the right to vote in a primary) by choosing to register as unaffiliated.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | February 6, 2008 3:30 PM

If we had "open" primaries we might get better results. Connecticut has had statewide primaries since about the 1960's and I cannot recall a Democratic primary for major state (e.g. Governor, Senator) office in Connecticut where the party nominee - the winner of the primary - actually won the November general election.

Fractious party fights manifested in statewide primaries have prompted third parties to run candidates with broad scale support who have gone on to win the general election. Venerable Democrats have dropped to third place because non-affiliated, Republicans and dissident Democrats effectuate a combined bandwagon for a third party.

There aught to be a "real" primary law whereby the winner gets all the delegates. Yesterdays primary ended up dividing the state Democratic delegates evenly between the two candidates eviscerating any meaningful effect of the primary.

The "Super-Delegate" rule giving professional pols special status benefits no one except the pols who then can use their power to make more deals so they can continue feeding off the public trough.

Posted by: Dependent on Those In Charge | February 6, 2008 3:50 PM

This quote: "She attributed it to people not realizing they couldn't switch from being independent voters to registered Democrats or Republicans less than three months before Tuesday's "Super Tuesday" presidential primary;" is either an innacurate use of terms by Ferrucci or loose reporting.

There is no such thing as an independent voter in Connecticut. There are unaffiliated voters and there are members of the Independent Party.

An unaffiliated voter, could register in a party up until around January 31 (I won't look it up now, the precise time is not the point).

A member of the Independent Party, which unfortunatly means some people who wrote in "Independent" on the party affilition line, could not switch to Dem or GOP within three months.

We are too free in Connecticut to use "independent" to describe an Unaffiliated voter. The result is that for months now, voters have said "they won't let me vote" when, upon questioning, I have found that the person who feels their rights are being violated are probably and unknowingly registered as a member of the Independent party and by law cannot switch since November 5 2007 to another party to vote in the February 5 2008 primary.

I suggest that the Secretary of State needs to go beyond public education and asking registrars and moderators to be clear in their terms to possibly requiring the Independent Party to change its name in Connecticut, or requiring that party affiliation be written on registration forms as "Independent Party" both words, or recognizing a unique problem arising from the common and the specific uses of the word and then requiring Registrars to give leeway in these instances where Independent Party members claim they thought they were unaffiliated.

Posted by: MonaB | February 6, 2008 5:15 PM

Yes, we did turn away lots of people who thought they might be registered with a party. I doubt I reported my bathroom habits however. A clarification if you please: During our conversation I suggested Mr. Vitkowsky seek clarification about the registration process since I really don't know the process or what transpires at the registrar's office during the registration process. I assume Ms. Ferrucci is correct when she says that lots of people want to remain independent. I agree it is certainly possible they might not understand the implications of that choice. However, in all fairness, the registrar's office does work VERY hard. Until you are involved directly in the election process it is hard to understand exactly how much work goes into this. Part of the confusion lies I think in the publicity which other state's primaries and caucuses get in the media. We see electors walking around with their ballots, engaged in conversations,and doing things very differently than we do here in CT. I explained to each voter I tried to help that the rules in CT are different than in many other states. Some folks thought they were Democrats or Republicans simply because they vote that way. Others come from other states and do not realize that each state has it's own prerogative. Voters need to be educated. It is our obligation to do so. It is also the voters' obligation to be informed. I suggest to those who feel the rules are wrong- call your representatives- work for change. But also be thankful to those who work so hard to make your voting a relatively simple, painless and apparently simple process. I think we owe a big thank you to the entire Registrar's office and to all who help them perform so well.

Posted by: doug | February 7, 2008 1:21 PM

I agree with Donna. It seems foolish to me to allow Republicans who hate Hillary Clinton to vote in a Democratic primary.

Depending on how many people registered with a party for the first time over the last several weeks, it might simply be a failure to get all the paperwork completed.

MonaB certainly is correct in her assessment that people simply don't know if their registered with a party. How can you not know that? It's ridiculous.

Our election system is flawed. For a national election, the methods and rules should be exactly the same in every state. The delegate system is ridiculous as well and should be abolished. The whole framework unfairly benefits the two established parties. Given the choice to vote Green this week, or for the Working Families party, I guarantee people might have opted for those candidates.

But all these people who argue that the two major parties are too much alike and that people should have other options really need to start financing other parties. Without candidates who have a viable, realistic chance of winning in November, the only role available to a third-party candidate is that of the spoiler for the candidate that probably should have won.