Hey, there! Log in / Register
Last day to register for the presidential primary
By adamg on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 7:44am
You can do it online. Don't be scared by the photo of the guy in the upper left who thinks voters are morons who can't figure out how to register for a party correctly.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Let's go Trump!
Let's go Trump!
lol
@ anon troll.
Hey look, one of the two
Hey look, one of the two Southie losers who beat up a sleeping homeless guy while shouting Trump rhetoric is out of jail already!
Do it online IF you have a MA drivers' license or state photo ID
If you don't, you'll instead use the online form to generate a paper form. Then you need to print that out, sign it, and mail it with today's postmark.
How does any adult function in 2016
Without valid I.D.? And it's not like valid I.D. is hard for a 'legal' person to get, nor expensive.
Moved to MA but still have out-of-state license
Believe it or not, those are still considered valid until they expire, which could be years.
Not
Unless the law has changed since I moved here (longer ago than I care to think) - if you move to Massachusetts, you're supposed to replace your out-of-state driver's license with a MA license within 60 days.
But if you haven't ...
you can still register to vote in MA. You just can't do it online.
News to me
But looks like you're right. Still, given that pretty much anyone (police, bars, etc) will accept an out-of-state provided its not expired, seems like its a law that's not being enforced. In fact, I'm pretty sure I used my out-of-state license when I registered to vote in Mass without anyone ever mentioning that I couldn't (they may have asked for a second piece of ID, but I don't remember).
See the response to Ron. If
See the response to Ron. If you have already registered to vote but were unable to link up your name and address together, you will be coded to show ID on arrival to vote. If your driver's license is out of state, bring a current utility bill or something similar such as a bank statement to show both your name and current address.
If you cannot link up your name and current address you can still vote using a provisional ballot which is manually accounted for and processed as soon as your name and address can be linked and validated.
You might still have your previous state's driver's license
if you just moved here within the past few months. You can still register to vote today, but you can't do it online. You have to generate the printed form and mail it (or bring it to your city or town hall) today.
Also, if you don't drive a car, you might get by in daily life just fine with a passport, college ID, or the like.
Ron is Correct
You can do it on-line provided that you have a State ID that has an "S" number. This way the City Election Dept can match your name, address, and date of birth up with records from the RMV.
However, if you register on-line or send in a paper form, your entry into the voter check list book used by election department officials on primary day will be coded to show ID. This completes the process to show that you are a resident at that address and qualified to vote at your local assigned polling place. So have a driver's license or state ID handy.
If you do not have a state-issued ID, no problem. The process is to determine you live at that address, so something that shows your name and address can be provided; for example an auto registration, government check or other document showing name and address, utility bill, bank statement, etc.
A passport does not show a street address, nor does a social security card.
If you cannot link up your name and address see the clerk or warden and they will process you using a provisional ballot. This is a hand-counted ballot that will be locked and accounted-for and will be added to the voter count as soon as your address can be validated as soon as possible after the election date by the election department.
State ID with "S" number
Are there state IDs without "S" numbers (and if so, why)?
Any good potential Candidates for State Secretary?
Voter Mobilization and outreach would be better with a new Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Who might be good potential Candidates for a new Massachusetts State Secretary?
Voter mobilization and outreach
would be better if we abandoned the archane practice of separate primary ballots for each party, and the idiotic requirement that unenrolled voters be required to declare a party affiliation, even if temporarily, in order to cast a ballot.
And with respect to thezak, keeping records wf which party ballots unenrolled voters were forced to select, not to mention records of which registered voters chose not to participate in an election, serves no legitimate purpose and is just a wasteful exercise in bureauracy.
The current voting process is
The current voting process is codified in national and state law. If people seek to change the process it will require legislation.
The March 1 election will have 4 party ballots available. Democratic, Republican, Green-Rainbow, and United Independent party.
On arrival at the polling place if you are currently enrolled in one of these parties you will automatically be given that ballot. If you do not wish to be a part of such party for this primary process you will need to make that change by 8 pm today.
Unenrolled (**) persons, those who are not specifically registered and aligned with any specific political party will be asked to choose a party ballot that they will mark on voting day. If you are specifically registered with a specific party, specifically the 4 named above, you can only take that ballot on March 1. Again... if you think you will want a different ballot, you must change your party affiliation today or switch to an unenrolled status.
You should note that the Secretary of State has noted that some people registering to vote may have inadvertently registered themselves with the United Independent Party thinking that "independent" means you are not associated with a specific political party. The Secretary of State and local election departments are trying to accommodate such voter errors but time is running out.
In years passed, "independent" was a popular term used to denote you were not associated with a specific political party but with the advent of this new party, created by Mr Falchuck and associates, there has been some confusion.
Please do not blame the polling place workers for your error. They are powerless to make any changes on that day. It's the law.
Note that political party designees, meaning other parties that do not have a ballot in play, will be allowed to vote in this primary thanks to an act by the legislature.
For example, if you are a Libertarian, and are so noted in the voter roster book, since the Libertarian Party does not have a ballot in play for this primary, you will be treated as an unenrolled person, asked to state which party ballot you want to mark, and will be allowed to vote.
If you have any questions you are encouraged to contact your local election department in your city to ask questions.
You can check your voter status on line in many locations or can call your local city or town hall.
The voting event on March 1
The voting event on March 1 is a Presidential primary but will include some additional state committee primary offices on the party ballot.
There will be another primary in September to narrow the field of state office candidates. The final election for many state offices and president will then be in November.
Some voters are morons.
If you can't figure out how to register then maybe it is for the best that you don't vote. Why do people think increasing turnout by getting more morons to vote makes the system better?
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken
Concur, we should institute
Concur, we should institute an intelligence test for everyone who wants to register to vote
Maybe we actually should
.
What's the deal
with Galvin? When did he make people feel like morons?
Prince of Darkness
Prince of Darkness
http://ur1.ca/oi3mn
google. com/search?q=galvin+"prince+of+darkness"
Any action available or petition?... for example recall, impeachment or a forced resignation?
He's secretly the most
He's secretly the most corrupt politician in the state in a position which normally no one ever really thinks of being capable of being malicious or corrupt.
Galvin saw an uptick in
Galvin saw an uptick in voters registering under the United Independent party and believes that they mistakenly did so, thinking that they were registering as independents i.e. not belonging to any party. In MA independents are categorized as unenrolled and they can vote in either party's primary. Someone registered as Independent could not vote in any party as the United Independent party does not have a candidate. Frankly I've had to repeat the distinction to my husband who is originally out of state a couple of times so I don't think Galvin is far off. Galvin consequently sent out letters to everyone who recently registered as Independents to provide clarification and make sure they had an opportunity to change their registration if it was a mistake. Adam is interpreting that as Galvin thinks voters are stupid and don't know how to register.
Um, why does a voter have to register
in ANY party? Consider all voters 'unenrolled', and place ALL primiary candidates on a single ballot.
SImplifies the process greatly, and doesn't prevent a party 'loyalist' for voting for their candidates.
they don't. I think the
they don't. I think the choices to register are democrat, republican, united independent, green party, and unenrolled. if you're unenrolled then it provides more options during primary voting in that you can choose which party to choose from, but you still can't vote for multiple parties during the primary. So if I register as democrat then come primary day when I go to vote I vote either Clinton or Sanders. If I'm unenrolled I go and then need to choose which primary to vote on democrat or republican and then choose from that primary's candidate pool. General elections you vote for whoever you want at that point regardless of party enrollment. So even if you're unenrolled you can only vote in one primary not each one. If the next question is why can't we vote on multiple primaries then I have no clue. That seems to be the way the voting laws are structured.
Simple solution to that
Print "VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE ONLY" on the ballot. No need for multiple ballots or for poll workers asking the question "Which ballot do you want?" - and placing your answer on the public record for the election.
IF your voter volunteers ask you which ballot you want
I'm unenrolled and in North Quincy there have been a few primaries where the kind soul who is handing out the ballots has a Democrat one ready for me to take. I heard an audible gasp a while back when I said "No, I want a Republican one." THE HORROR!
This was before Quincy went purple and became a bellwether city.
And now the poll worker
and your neighbors in line know you voted Republican. Sort of defeats the purpose of a secret ballot if you ask me.
In my community, the poll workers always ask which ballot I want, and then put a colored notation next to my name to denote which ballot I took. Not only that, but the ballots are color coded as well - for the poll workers to see when I hand it in. Again, sort of defeats the purpose of a secret ballot.
Then at the beginning of the next election cycle, I get junk mail from the candidates running in the party I chose the last time around.
Utter and unnecessary nonsesne. One primary ballot for ALL candidates, and be done with it.
Defeats the very purpose of a primary
Primaries are not first round general elections.
Many, including some commenters on this post (not just you, Roadman, so my apologies for singling you out for response) forget that the very purpose of a primary is for members of a political party to choose their party's nominee as a candidate for office. It used to be done by good old boys in back rooms, but a push for more transparency in the last century implemented public votes be required of all party members to choose the nominee.
Then, about 20 years ago, states started letting anyone vote in any party's primary (to varying degrees, of course-- I'm being ironical).
Fast forward to today, and with the general lack of civic knowledge and historical context that exists, now we have folks who just assume the primary elections are just early general elections and don't know why they can't vote across party lines or for multiple parties, etc. I happen to think MA does it reasonably well with the compromise of letting unenrolled voters essentially become party members for a day, but they have to stick to one party.
Points taken
However, explain how placing all candidates on a single ballot prevents the various political parties from choosing their final nominee for the general election.
And, with respect, "Because that's the way it's always been done" is not a valid excuse to maintain the current system.
because enrolled members of
because enrolled members of one party could and would easily vote for the candidate in the opposite party that is deemed the easiest to beat in the general election.
This is especially true in a one party state and with incumbents. The incumbent is going to win the primary (and is likely running unopposed), so why note vote for the 'weaker' candidate in the opposite party during the primary?
There are many many ways that 1 ballot would easily lead to members of a political party not being able to nominate their preferred candidate. In fact it encourages the opposite to happen by allowing non members access.
Forget about 1 ballot with enrolled voters being able to cross vote, Its debatable whether unenrolled voters should even be allowed to vote in a primary (in many states, they cannot).
because enrolled members of
So what? If that's a person's strategy in voting, that's their business. Still doesn't justify a system (multiple ballots, voter's party choice becoming part of the public record) that's unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic.
see Craigindaville's post.
see Craigindaville's post.
If you dont understand the issue with the opposite party voting for candidates, you dont understand the point of primaries.
This issue absolutely justifies multiple ballots.
I agree with you there is no reason for the unenrolled voters choice being recorded and becoming public , but then again I dont believe unenrolled should be voting in primaries anyway.
To follow your logic
I should also get to vote for Mayor of Boston on my Somerville ballot.
When we get away from the party label and move to geographic labels, it is a bit clearer, right?
Members of the political party choose their candidate. The fact that unenrolled voters are allowed to vote for a party that they do not belong to should not be confused with a right for all people to vote for any office in any way in any place ever during a primary.
That privilege isn't a right. Your right is to vote for anyone you want in the general election. I think the points that have been made here make clear why that is.
Where did I ever state
or infer that a one ballot, one primary system would allow voting for candidates in local elections outside your city or town?
Based on the votes received during the primaries. And there is NOTHING in a one primary, one ballot system that prevents that from happening.
One primary, one ballot SIMPLIFIES the process. No need for multiple ballots (one for each party). No need to query voters about their (forced) party preference. No need to maintain records about which party voters were required to choose.
In short, simplfying the process, encouraging more people to participate in the process, and preserving the intent of the process (secret ballot). How is that worse than the current "the party runs things based on ancient and outdated protocols that benefit the party at the expense of the candidates and the voters" system?
You're missing the point entirely
I was using that as an illustration, a metaphor, a guide for understanding that primaries are for members of a political party to choose their own nominee; much like I assume you would agree that the residents of Boston should be the ones to choose their own mayor (even if I am impacted by Boston policies as a resident of a neighboring city).
Printing one primary ballot with all candidates for all offices means that a voter could vote across party lines in an election that is set up solely for the purpose of voting for party nominees. Some states have this set-up (called an "open primary") but I don't think it's surprising that I think those are bad ideas. To continue my analogy above, it would be like printing one ballot for all elections in Massachusetts, and then handing them out at every polling place and asking people just to vote for their city. Sure, it might seem simpler because it's only one ballot, but I think the complications and very real negative possibilities are pretty self-evident, as they would be in a primary where people start choosing candidates from various parties for various offices.
As an unenrolled voter, you have CHOSEN not to affiliate with a political party. That's fine; that's your choice.
When you decide to vote in a primary, you are CHOOSING to vote for a political party's candidates for nomination. While POTUS is the big news item, primaries also exist for many other offices further down the ticket, as well.
Making that CHOICE to vote for a party's nominees, you then have to CHOOSE which party you want to temporarily associate with for this one election. No one forced you to do anything at any point in this process, and while I'm sorry if you feel looked down upon because you ask for a certain ballot, that has nothing to do with the actual point at hand. If you were a full-time enrolled Republican (or, heck, even just decided to register Republican today a la this article and have that affiliation going into this election) you would also have to ask for a ballot from that party. We all do it.
Or, since you have decided not to affiliate with any party, you can sit this one out and wait for those who have affiliated to choose their nominees, at which point you can vote for those various nominees in the general election.
I'm not sure why this basic, fundamental concept of party nominations seems to be escaping you.
I'll say it again
Why is it NECESSARY for a person to affiiate themselves with a party to vote in a primary election?
According to your previous responses, the answer is apparently "Well, that's the way the system has worked forever, and we don't want to change it." If you have a single primary ballot, and choose the top runner from each party as that party's nominee in the final election - that serves the same purpose as separate ballots, right?
And it not just 'being looked down upon because I choose party X", it's because a person's choice of candidate should be nobody's business but their own. Being forced to choose a party affiliation restricts that choice even before the voter gets into the ballot box.
A common complaint I hear every election cycle is lower and lower primary turnouts, largely because 'unenrolled' voters don't want to declare a party affiliation. Sounds like something is wrong with the cuurent system - and can be easily fixed by changing how primaries are conducted.
It isn't necessary
Just register "unenrolled" and show up and ask for a ballot of your choosing.
You seem unclear on the whole party system ...
And I'll repeat it again
Primaries exist solely for the purpose of allowing members of a political party to choose their own party's nominees.
I can't get any clearer than that.
OK, primaries are for the benefit of the political parties,
which are private organizations. Then explain why a) the administration of primaries are funded by the TAXPAYERS and b) why it is necessary for the choice an UNENROLLED voter is forced to make becomes part of the public record for the primary election.
I'm done
No longer paying the Troll Toll. You can't possibly be this dense.
At least we aren't South Carolina
which is having its Republican and Democratic primaries on two different days this month.
Come to think of it
I think the basic misunderstanding here is that you assume that the primary for candidate for President of the United States is the only thing you vote for in the primary election. If that were the case, then I could understand your confusion, since you could only vote once and for one office, no matter which party you chose to associate with.
I assumed since you shared concerns about past experiences voting in primaries that you knew that other offices were on the ballot, but I realize that was an assumption maybe I shouldn't have made. I hope this helps clarify why listing every party and every office isn't practical.
Actually, you raise a good point
If there are multiple offices on the ballot, then the current system forces people to accept a given party affiilation for all the offices.
Party loyality may have been all the rage when my parents were voters in the 1950s and 1960s, but it's another outdated ancronisim of the system. Plus, as I've previously noted, one primary - one ballot does not preclude voters from selecting all candidates in the same party if they want to.
And municipal loyalty was all the rage
back when my parents were voters in the 50's and 60's, but seeing as how we're all interconnected, it's an outdated system. I should be allowed to vote in whatever local election I want, for Mayor of Boston or Cambridge, or perhaps for state rep three districts over because I happen to care a lot about what happens in Melrose because I've got family there...
Just because I can vote in every municipal election in the state doesn't preclude me from only voting in my city and district.
See how that doesn't make a lot of sense?
You need to realize that just as important as it is to allow members of a community to elect their own representatives, it is just as important to allow members of a political party to elect their own representatives for the general election. Okay, maybe not "just as important" but the point is the same.
Wouldn't having both
Wouldn't having both primaries on one ballot confuse things even more? If the point of the primary is for democrats to choose their candidate and republicans to choose their candidate and they're both on the same ballot what's to stop someone from choosing two people when they're only supposed to vote either or? they'd just invalidate their ballot altogether instead. As evidenced by the fact that people are accidentally registering for the independent party in MA, people don't read instructions...
See?
Even anons understand this.
;-)
ah! thanks! that makes sense!
ah! thanks! that makes sense!
Coming soon
"The Unenrolled Party".
Does it matter? "What
Does it matter? "What difference does it make?" We all know HRC is going to win the primary. Then MA will vote Democratic anyway for the general election.