Hey, there! Log in / Register
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.
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
One of these things is not like the other...
Andre Campbell said she “lived in Mattapan for the last 10 years.”
If so, why would she have voted in Stoneham 3 years ago as the Boston Globe reported?
Because Mattapan is "like" her home
Just like the plethora of suburbanites who claim to be from Boston yet would never support annexation to Boston.
However, I don't live in the district, like most commenters here. Unlike them, I know it is not my place to pontificate about whether Yancey or Campbell should represent the Fourth.
Good info, though.
I'm writing in Doug Bennett.
I'm writing in Doug Bennett.
Good luck bringing that
4x8 sheet of green plywood into the ballot box.
Campbell disclaimed pro-charter campaign $ as $ from 'friends'
Chuck...is this
the best you can do???
We need to tighten the voter
We need to tighten the voter rules, not just to prevent illegal aliens from voting but for citizens as well. Would she have been able to vote in Stoneham if she had to show an ID?
chasing anon's proaganda
Antone interested in chasing anon's voter fraud red herring? I know I'm not. Don't waste your time, when Bush and Rove were in the White House, they made it a priority for US attorney's across the country.chasing :
So who do you like in the Campbell Yancey race and why?
You know what the real fraud is?
People like yourself getting sucked into spewing such "truthiness" that is simply NOT supported by factual evidence and data, and supporting initiatives that disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.
Which could include you.
Speaking of disenfranchising voters
how about the current practices of:
Having to declare a party affiliation to cast a ballot in a primary election
Having said "temporary' party affiliation being recorded as part of the public record for said election
Being handed a ballot that's color-coded based on party, which the polling workers (and perhaps your neighbors as well) see when they hand it to you and when you hand it back in
Having whether or not you chose to vote become part of the public record and tracked from election to election ad infinitem
Remove all this needless BS from the process first. Then I might listen to your concerns about requiring voters to show IDs at the polling place.
That's not disenfranchisement
You want to pick the Democratic nominee, become a Democrat. You want a say in who the Republicans stand behind, become a Republican. Otherwise, just vote in November, when such "intrusive" questions are not asked.
Besides, this is a nonpartisan election, so your point is moot.
If I'm an independent voter
explain why I need to become either a Democrat or a Republican (albiet temporarily) in order to exercise my Constitutional right to vote. There is NO legitimate reason for this practice, let alone the fact that which party I'm FORCED to choose becomes part of the public record for everyone and anyone to access.
Fortunatley, there's an easy solution to eliminate this nonsense. Put all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, on a SINGLE ballot. Gives the voters MAXIMUM choices while truly preserving the secrecy of their vote.
Thank you for proving my point. Inquiring about my choice of candidate's party is indeed intrusive and unnecessary - especially when it becomes part of the public record. Implying that the way I should avoid this nonsense is by NOT voting in a primary election is certainlly disenfranchisement. And remember that most communities still have partisan primaries, so this is clearly a valid concern - regardless of the "well, that's the way the system's always worked, so we see no need to change it" mentality you and others are consistently supporting.
You shouldn't be able to vote in primary elections
Since you are not a member of a political party, but state law is nicer to you and lets you decide my party's nominee for an office (assuming you choose the Democratic Party ballot.) If being publically associated with a political party somehow offends you, you might want to rethink voting in that party's primary.
A political party is a private entity. They exist to further the political aims of the organization. They choose candidates to further those aims by being successful in appealing to the larger electorate (or they don't and lose.) As long as they are not discriminating the way my party used to in the South by actively excluding membership due to race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or whatever, they should be able to handle their affairs on their own. In other countries, parties nominate candidates in a very closed system- in England independent candidates have run for Parliament after being shut out of the nomination process.
Once again, if you are interested in the direction of a political party enough that you want to help choose their nominee, declare yourself for that party. But don't bitch and moan about it afterwards.
And yes, before you say it, the government somehow is on the hook for the cost of these party contests (down to the vote for ward committee people.) The argument can be made that taxpayers shouldn't have to bear the cost, but putting the ballots in an impartial entity (the election boards, not the government overall) is a good thing, and laws are applied to the process, including allowing unenrolled voters like yourself to temporarily enroll.
SInce the government is on the hook
for the cost of these elections (which I have no real issues with), why not make it simple to administer and truly fair for the voters. As I've stated, there is no LEGITIMATE reason to require an independent voter to declare a party affiliation to vote in a primary election. And making a voter's party choice (again, a choice that the voter is FORCED to make despite the fact they are independent) part of the public record is totally unnecessary.
Put all primary candidates, regardless of their party affiliations, on a SINGLE ballot. Fairness for all candidates and voters, and preserves both the secret ballot and the intent of the "independent' voter.
Unless you somehow believe that the current system of multiple ballots is somehow more efficent and less cumbersome to adminster. Watching the workers at any polling place for any lenght of time ought to convince you otherwise - especially when they run out of ballots for a particular party.
There IS a legitimate reason
It's just not a reason you agree with.
And I will try to briefly state it again. The Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and so on are independent, private groups with differing philosophies and whatnot. To declare that you are a part of that group means you want to have a say in the direction they go electorally. You typically choose that you don't care which direction any of them want to go in, until primary election day, when you become whatever. That's your choice. You can choose not to do that and wait until we decide our candidates, or you can declare a choice.
The problem you are ignoring is that we are lacking a robust party system in Massachusetts. Or a tradition of electing independent candidates to office.
Yes
By registering in Stoneham, she essentially unregistered in Dorchester. I do not know of any state where the requirement is proof of address, so even in Texas she could vote.
Nice try, though.
essentially...
So, was she in fact ever dropped from the rolls in boston?
Should have been
When you register/reregister, they ask for your previous voting address (if any). When the registration is processed, notice is sent to the clerk in the town where a voter previously voted. That gets you off the rolls. And you do sign the form under pains of perjury, so it is a big deal to be honest.
I know a guy from a politically connected family who kept voting from his parents' address when he was living in other towns and other states. I don't know what Campbell's deal was, but she definitely called Stoneham home for a while.
I recently moved and when I
I recently moved and when I registered to vote, I was sent a confirmation letter from my new town and I also recieved a confirmation letter from my previous town, confirming that I should be removed from the voting rolls.
I don't see how someone could live in Stoneham and vote in Boston - unless she never registered to vote in Stoneham.
Doesn't sound above board to me and sounds like she has no right to vote anywhere other than Stoneham.
She can vote in Boston
She reregistered in 2013 in Mattapan. At that point, she could no longer vote in Stoneham.
Remember, this thread began with an allegation of voter fraud, that she voted in multiple places. My thing is that if she registered properly (and there is no evidence she didn't) that wouldn't have happened. The only thing that happened is a minor political scandal that had no effect on her election chances.
I'm just trying to understand
I'm just trying to understand; if I lived in Stoneham but registered to vote in Mattapan - that's OK?
If I moved from Mattapan to Stoneham and never let the town clerks know, I could still vote in Mattapan? Doesn't sound right to me. I thought you could only vote in the town you reside in at the time of an election.
Appreciate the clarification....
Technically
You should vote where you live, but there have been examples of people doing otherwise. Two years ago the Herald did a story about this. The guy who owns Cedar Grove Gardens on Adams Street was (and maybe is) registered to vote there, but he hasn't lived in Boston for decades. Then there's my friend who lived in Brookline, Somerville, South Boston, New York City, and Chicago by remained registered in Dorchester. He finally realized that he wasn't coming back, so he did the honest thing.
In short, you can't vote in two different places. They could audit to make sure people live where they say they live, but that kind of voter fraud is not something the GOP cares about.
Oh, and the rules are different for the military, for obvious reasons.
She Grew Up in Boston
She grew up in the city and graduated from Boston Latin School. Whether she lived in Stoneham briefly or not, she's from here and understands the area's needs. She'll be a tremendous councilor.
caught up in her own assertions
I agree, her problem is not that she lived in Stoneham, her problem is that she told everyone she's been living in Boston for 10 years while she was living in Stoneham,