Hundreds of New York…voters to file suit…after claiming their party affiliation mysteriously changed

[w4rma]

Source: New York Daily News

Hundreds of New York state voters to file suit calling the closed primary 'a threat to our democratic system' after claiming their party affiliation mysteriously changed

More than 200 outraged New York voters have joined a lawsuit claiming the party affiliation on their voter registration changed without their consent. The voters say they are unfairly being shut out of Tuesday’s primary.

The suit, to be filed Monday in Brooklyn, calls for New York to be an open primary state, allowing anyone to vote in primaries regardless of party affiliation.
…
Numerous voters involved in the suit claim they looked up their voter registrations after the deadline passed to find that their party affiliation had changed from Democratic or Republican to “Not affiliated” or “Independent,” a switch that will bar them from voting in either primary.
…
She called Nassau Board of Elections and they told her that she had filled out a form in September change her party affiliation and sent it in October, but she claims she never did that. She’d be a first-time voter.
…
Fabrizio Milito, another voter who signed up with the suit, registered as a Democrat in 2009 and voted in local elections as recent as last year.

The 25-year-old construction worker from Bayville, L.I., noticed his registration now says “not affiliated.”

“I got really upset and I went to call them (the Nassau board of elections) and even the guy on the phone was pretty baffled,” Melito said. “He told me I must have changed it but I never did.”

Some voters involved in the lawsuit — who are primarily Democratic — also claim they their voter registration had been canceled altogether.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hundreds-ny-voters-file-lawsuit-alleged-voter-fraud-article-1.2603876

[merrily]

1. This primary is bringing to light a lot of things America needs to know.

This is not "fishy," but why was the deadline for switching parties last October while the deadline for new registrations was less than a month ago?

The rigging of this country to make sure the PTB stay in control of the 99% needs to stop.

[Scuba]

21. +1

[djg21]

22. 5-304

Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Election Law 5-304. When changing enrollment from one party to another, the new enrollment doesn't become effective until after the next general election in order to prevent prevent party raiding. This isn't an issue with new registrations, and the State has an interest in encouraging persons to register and vote.

[merrily]

46. Thanks. That is totally consistent with my post.

[FreakinDJ]

29. Clinton Campaign staff has access to the Voter Registration Software

All too easy to access "Sanders Campaign Donors" and change registration data

[Bubzer]

69. I'm sure Marc Elias (hillary's lawyer) will take over the lawsuit, just like he's doing in Arizona..

and will "fight" to allow voters to have their say (so long as the suppressed votes remain suppressed).

[FreakinDJ]

71. Quite a lot of evidence suggesting Hillary Campaign tampering with the Voter Registration Files

So yes - it is a typical Rovian tactic to use the Accused camp's Lawyer to represent the disenfranchised

[Bubzer]

73. Exactly! Do the dirty deed, the bring in the "concerned" party to sweep up the evidence.

It's enough to make you and

[FreakinDJ]

78. This is the ISSUE that will swing the Vote

but the corporate media will be silent

[LiberalFighter]

96. Where is the evidence?

[ronnykmarshall]

109. Up someones ass probably

Of course this is Hillary's fault doncha know?

[xloadiex]

86. The same Marc Elias

who had the nerve to go to the Sanders for President sub on Reddit to 'splain things to the youngins to try and say
don't look at us.

https://www.reddit.com/user/Marc_Elias

[Igel]

74. In Texas I can search voter registration databases.

That means I have access to them. Limited access, of course.

Searching is not the same as changing. There's one of the (many) limits.

I cannot change anybody's registration.

[FreakinDJ]

76. Hillary Campaign staff has "Special Access"

To enter Voter Registration and Party Affiliation information

[sweetloukillbot]

81. And you have evidence of this?

[ronnykmarshall]

110. Of course not.

[Kingofalldems]

88. Oh it's Hillary's fault? I get it.

From now on everything is Hillary's fault until proven otherwise.

[phazed0]

91. Funny how all these 'dirty tactics' keep happening and seemingly only affect Bernie negatively. nt

[rhett o rick]

112. Well her backers, the billionaires don't like to lose. They really don't like to lose.

And they have the resources to buy elections, literally. But I assume that's all cool with Clinton Supporters. The ends justify the means. Frack the little people.

[LiberalFighter]

101. Nobody from a political party or campaign has special access to any state voter registration system.

[rhett o rick]

113. A bit audacious. I noticed you didn't say, "As far as I know."

[FreakinDJ]

116. Arizona Secretary of State Confirms Election Fraud Happened in State Primary

Arizona’s Secretary of State has confirmed that election fraud took place in the Arizona primary on March 22.

Reagan answered “yes” when asked if she knew for certain voter registration had been changed prior to the primary election, then followed up by saying:

“This was something that I know happens, and I know it happened to people in this room. It’s not hearsay. It happened to someone in my own office. One of my employees was registered as a particular party, went to go vote, and I don’t want to divulge his personal details, but it happened to him.”

http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-election-fraud-primary/

[former9thward]

122. What you are describing is not fraud.

And no one in AZ has given any evidence of fraud. The most common problem in AZ is when people move between elections and change their voting address they make the change on the elections website. But they don't bother checking the party box even though they are prompted. They just change the address and move on. If you don't mark a party box it will make you party not declared or independent which makes you ineligible to vote in the primary.

[LiberalFighter]

123. Yet there hasn't been anything about anyone hacking to change the registrations.

They should be able to determine the reasons for any of the problems that occurred. It shouldn't be that difficult to do. And it shouldn't take that long.

As for the SoS employee they claim it happened to him but won't provide details. They say they don't want to divulge his personal details but they should be able to identify what happened exactly and provide a trail.

[LiberalFighter]

124. That particular image really doesn't mean anything.

The image on the right is to lookup the status of a provisional ballot for the 2016 Presidential Primary. They needed to show the Registration Information that would show if there are any discrepancies.

[LiberalFighter]

100. You are absolutely right.

None of the states will provide that type of access to any political party or campaign.

[cannabis_flower]

102. You could if

you filled out voter a voter registration card, signed it and sent it in. Of course, the signature wouldn't match but unless they checked it against the original they wouldn't notice.

[brooklynite]

82. Feel free to share your evidence.

[Retrograde]

85. Voter rolls are public record in many if not most places

Yes, campaigns have access to lists of voters, their addresses, and party affiliations: in my state, this is even posted at the polling place so anyone can drop by and see it their neighbors voted. There are laws about keeping records of campaign contributors - even the small ones - and if those are public record as well there's no problem correlating the lists and doing some elementary data mining. And all organized campaigns try to get as much information as possible to target potential voters for their candidates.

So far, all legal even if some think it's sleazy. If it can be shown that a political campaign is actually changing voter rolls, then by all means prosecute, no matter who's doing it. But it's going to require more than a relative handful of people saying that they "really, really thought they registered as Democrats and now their not", plus eliminating things like random clerical errors in processing individual forms or even systematic errors from database merging.

I mean, I really, really thought I sent in that renewal check last month..

[Pakhet]

92. Yeah, right. My son just "really really thought"

He'd be registered as the same party he's always been affiliated with in the past.

[LiberalFighter]

105. Some people think that public records means that anyone can have complete access.

Yet they haven't shown any state voter registration system that can be accessed with full edit rights.

You are right about clerical errors. Don't forget that it can happen by voters when it is done online. Both are also issues related to voter fraud claims. The database merging I can't see that applying to anything but transferring data from the motor vehicle department. But I would think both would use the same ID to make it possible and it would be based on what the motor vehicle department uses.

[LiberalFighter]

95. How easy is it to access and change the data?

Besides having the name and residence county they would also need to know the 4 digit SSN, voter id and driver license number.

[Dont call me Shirley]

98. Probably at least as easy as it is to hack the Diebold machines and their database.

[LiberalFighter]

106. Diebold voting machines do not contain voter registration data.

Diebold voting machines only has the ballot info and programming to tabulate the results.

Any data from electronic poll books would only be accessible on election day. It is also encrypted. All books are monitored for any issues.

[Dont call me Shirley]

107. I was talking about this...

http://electiondefensealliance.org/howard_dean_hacks_gems_system_topic_a

[ronnykmarshall]

111. Shurley this can't happen???!!!!!

[Dont call me Shirley]

137. Wanna bet?

[ronnykmarshall]

139. DAMN!

You missed a chance to say ..... "and stop calling me Shirley"!

[billhicks76]

125. Anonymous Needs To Get Involved And Check Things

If Hillary Team is hacking voter data then they should all go to jail. What a great person to vote for...people suspicious your committing federal crimes. Clintonites are dreaming if they think independents that are for Bernie will just vote Hillary...they want change or they will stay home and wait for the next opportunity for revolutionary progress. Clintonites whining about the lesser of 2 evils is a joke. Independents would rather fight on the next front than pretend change occurs with Hillary...better to face evil than to fake it.

[randome]

136. The only 'dreaming' that is being done is yours.

If Independents are such fighters, why don't they start their own party? They'd rather think of themselves as the 'ultra-superdelgates' of America.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[daleanime]

128. +1

[yuiyoshida]

2. wow, sure seems like some people

want to stay in power. This is absolutely disgusting!

[Betty Karlson]

7. Vile and disgusting tactics. I hope that all registered voters will vote them clean out of office.

"Democratic" party - my ass

[Plucketeer]

41. That's what

a political revolution's about!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

68. Yes ! Learn how to rise up and fight back.

Before it's to late.

[FreakinDJ]

59. Anonymous Report: Was Arizona’s Voter Registration Data Hacked and Changed?

At this point, it is clear that some of the cases, like Ms. Robertson’s, stem from ridiculous new procedures put in place by Arizona’s Secretary of State and Motor Vehicles Division. That said, other cases like Bianca’s, clearly do not fit that pattern, and the apparent overwhelming impact on Sanders supporters cannot be explained by a glitch that should have hit all parties and candidate supporters in roughly equal numbers.

The numbers in Pima County and Maricopa are particularly glaring. Reports of five-inch thick piles of provisional ballots and up to 2/3 of ballots in a particular voting location in Pima are quite suspicious. Numbers Anonymous is using internally to monitor election results across the country suggest that Sanders should have won student rich, and reliably progressive Pima county comfortably. The lack of polling stations alone in Maricopa County cannot explain how Phoenix, with a Democratic Mayor, could see Republicans show up at the polls on election day to the tune of around 80,000 voters, while Democrats cast a paltry 33,000 votes in Maricopa County on election day.


https://anonymousinvestigationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/anonymous-report-was-arizonas-voter-registration-database-hacked/

[Betty Karlson]

60. It's by now very clear that Debbie and her ilk are no assets to the Democratic Party. eom

[LiberalFighter]

114. Even though the Republican Party is in control in Arizona.

They have a Republican Governor, a Republican Secretary of State (state elections official), and Maricopa has a Republican County Recorder (county elections official) the Democratic Party made this all happened.

The primary fault lays at the hands of Helen Purcell for using only 60 voting locations instead of 724 that they will use in the General Election. It caused extremely long lines. The secondary fault is probably with the BMV software application when the party affiliation needs to be filled out. It probably does not have a confirmation dialog for that section to confirm the person renewing their drivers license has responded. Some blame can also be assigned to the voters themselves if they personally fill out a paper form or register online.

[Betty Karlson]

132. Debbie is closer to being Republican than to being a Democrat. Her big pals in FL are all Republican

When I said "her ilk" I didn't just refer to the ones with a D behind their names.

[mhatrw]

3. But let's not let these people vote as they want! BECAUSE WHY?

WHY IS IT OK THAT OUR "SYSTEM" ACTIVELY TRIES TO DISENFRANCHISE CITIZENS?

[ThePhilosopher04]

65. Because they're afraid of what the result would be.

[Retrograde]

87. Because the parties in power want to stay in power

So they make it easy for their supporters, and difficult for outsiders. New York - the state that brought you Tammany Hall - is particularly good (or bad, depending on your view) of this, and it's not new.

Open primaries sound good, but that system makes it difficult for third parties, or candidates farther from the center, to get traction.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, w4rma.

[Helen Borg]

5. It would be good to do some stats...

Collect the demographics of all these people, see if they are likely to vote for one vs the other candidate. That will provide some pointers as to whether there may have been intentional fiddling with this.

[LiberalFighter]

118. A better stat to include would be voting history

regarding primaries. If it shows a pattern of voting in Democratic primaries then it might be an issue. Another would be when and what method was used to update their voter registration.

[Enthusiast]

6. This is why we fight those expensive wars. So we can manipulate elections and destroy democracy..

It started with the 2000 election. Gore and the Democrats didn't fight back against that injustice. Then the dirty operatives pulled another stolen election in 2004. Once again Democrats didn't really fight back as they should have with Kerry too quick to concede.

After the Democrats gained a majority in 2006 surely they would make election reform a priority. I found it odd that the election issue was never adequately addressed. Now I know why.

This democracy is a sham.

[mpcamb]

30. One more situation where no one went to jail...

[mpcamb]

33. I also think R's are real good at election fraud and we're rank amateurs.

I think a lot of these occurrences are trial balloons to see what'll work in the general election.

[davidpdx]

8. I'll be shocked if anything is done

Call me skeptical. Once the primary is over (see Arizona) there isn't much that can be done. Yeah they are filing ahead of time, but don't look for a decision to be made by election day.

Sometimes I wonder if it would be more constructive just to throw tomatoes at the people who enabled this to happen.

[KitSileya]

9. Well, yeah, the Sanders' campaign only complains, while Hillary Clinton actually does something

As reported on Salon.com:

Hillary Clinton to sue Arizona over voting rights violations
Voters in Maricopa County stood in line for hours after Republican officials dramatically slashed polling locations

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/14/hillary_clinton_to_sue_arizona_over_voting_rights_violations/

[davidpdx]

11. Actually Sanders filed suit as well. If you actually read the news you'd see this.

Again, it will matter for November, but those who got screwed out of voting in the primary don't get squat.

[KitSileya]

12. According to the article I posted, Sanders called for an investigation,

while Clinton organized lawyers for a lawsuit. I haven't seen any reports that the Sanders campaign actually filed lawsuits as well, though of course I might have missed such news. Until I see such reports, I stand by my words - Bernie complains, Hillary tries to change.

"Calling Arizona’s election mess a “national disgrace,” Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who lost in the state by 12 points, echoed Mayor Stanton’s call for a federal investigation shortly after the election. The Justice Department opened an investigation into Arizona’s election on April 1.

Now, according to a new report from the Washington Post, rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign is organizing various Democratic groups to file a lawsuit against the state in federal court on Friday. Clinton campaign elections lawyer Marc Elias will reportedly file suit on behalf of several Arizonians as well as the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Arizona Democratic Party in Phoenix’s U.S. District Court.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/14/hillary_clinton_to_sue_arizona_over_voting_rights_violations/"

[davidpdx]

14. Wow, that didn't take long..........

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/dnc-lawsuit-arizona/

[KitSileya]

17. Nice to see him follow Hillary's lead. n/t

[davidpdx]

18. He stated he was going to after the election

So he certainly did more than complain as you insinuated.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

56. That's a dishonest response on your part, given your previous post.Do you not think people see that?

Does it not even matter to you?

[KitSileya]

58. The CNN article specified that he joined later, Thursday afternoon.

So, he's following the lead of Wasserman Schultz and Clinton. That's not dishonest.

[Bubzer]

70. And I quote:

the Sanders' campaign only complains, while Hillary Clinton actually does something

You're being intellectually dishonest here.

[davidpdx]

129. He or she doesn't know what intellectual or dishonest means

[Silver_Witch]

38. Thank you

It is hard to prove tho those who choose not to see!

[sulphurdunn]

48. You are attempting to change the subject

with your little red herring and to create a straw man of Bernie Sanders to knock down. The topic was a democratic party primary voting law suit in New York. Neither candidate is named in the suit. Try some other way to campaign for Hillary.

[KitSileya]

53. Since neither candidate live in Arizona, they can't be named in the suit.

That's duh-level understanding, there. She did however send her campaign lawyer to help out voters who were disenfranchised.

[sulphurdunn]

55. I was refering to NY

Duh! Furthermore, you don't need to reside in a state to be named in a lawsuit there. Duh! I know it is hard, but do try and stick with the topic.

[rhett o rick]

115. Did you read the OP? About the law suit? Hello? But you are correct about

Clinton or at least her backers do actually do things. Illegal things. H. Clinton, "The Ends Justify The Means."

[treestar]

10. These people are not credible

One, there is no way that would be an effective way to throw an election. These people did something they now regret and blame the system instead of admit it

[Vinca]

13. How could it not be credible if a guy voted as a Democrat last year

and is now on the rolls as something other than a Democrat despite not changing his affiliation? It is what it is and something is fishy.

[Hortensis]

20. No, the NY Democratic PRIMARY is for registered Democrats.

[sulphurdunn]

52. Ahhh!

Scrub the names of democrats and "presto" they are no longer democratic votes. How they got scrubbed or why is irrelevant. Brilliant!

[Land of Enchantment]

61. The 'changed' registration form will have a signature. In fact, ALL of them will have one.

Election fraud is a serious issue and I'll bet if this happened to you that you would obtain a copy of the changed registration and lawyer up to find out what happened. My aunt made a very good income as a forensic handwriting analysis expert for the courts.

[ronnykmarshall]

117. My voter registration was flagged as "inactive"

and I vote in every election.

Should I start some bullshit finger pointing because I'm a Hillary supporter and donate to her that Bernie's camp tried prevent me from voting in the California primary?

[Vinca]

126. I don't care who a person supports.

If their voter registration is tampered with they should do some bullshit finger pointing. I know I would and I hope you would, too.

[ronnykmarshall]

127. Of course I do Vinca

but look at some of this bullshit in this thread.

There are these post that suggest that Hillary's camp was behind this.

Give me a break. People need check their registration. I haven't seen anything in the mail yet for the election, my husband did and I didn't. So I checked.

People need to CHECK. Period.

[IdaBriggs]

16. ROFLMAO! As credible as "the way she was dressed, she was asking for it!"

One guy has been a registered Democrat since 2009 and voted in last year's local election.

Somebody was playing around with the voter database. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe it wasn't.

If it isn't an "accident", this is more of a long game for November.

The fewer registered Democrats, the easier it is to say "more Independents voted Republican" in the fall.

But automatically assuming hundreds of people who cared enough to double check their registration in advance just oops! forgot they aren't really Democrats is ridiculous.

[Dont call me Shirley]

103. Oh is the old victims blame the system ruse instead of themselves, when thier vote gets ripped off..

[Ford_Prefect]

15. They've bent or broken every other rule why stop now?

It has been clear for some time they're ruthlessly eliminating real progressives from the party. The DNC appears to have learned much about how to win the primaries and caucuses from the Bush campaign. That they would adopt this kind of tactic seems only logical. After all, they hired David Brock to run the dirty tricks program.

[Hortensis]

19. Hundreds in a state of 20 million? So what?

More than that will be voting for George Washington, or their dog.

One of the most serious limitations and faults of radicals is their tendency to believe that anything that benefits them is valid and good and anything that does not is bad. We are appalled when we see this ruthless determination to get their own way, no matter what, in the Far Right, and we should be even more appalled to see it on the Left.

[Ford_Prefect]

23. This is not the first state to show evidence of hacking that disadvantaged potential Sanders voters.

I expect there will be more reports of the same kind of "adjusted" registration. The "few hundred" are those joining the lawsuit. There were far more excluded by this heinous tactic.

On the day of the GE I expect you'll sing a different tune when you realize it was registered Democrats who could not vote.

But perhaps you share Debbie's view that only certain kinds of Democrats belong in the party at all?

[Hortensis]

25. Oh, please. Radicals started complaining as soon as

they realized the NY Democratic Party's rules did not give their candidate a special advantage. It only allowed people registered as Democrats to vote in their own primary.

THEN, the outrage and the search for justification of the outrage began, including what have become the usual allegations of corruption. A small percentage of the allegations are at least partially correct.

But most of the allegations of corruption made here on DU turn out to be lies -- evidence not of corruption in others but of typical radical ruthlessness in pursuit of goals. What's scary is how implicitly and angrily all these phony allegations are believed. Being proven wrong changes nothing.

As for those behaving this way who are not radicals, they should be ashamed of themselves and take a good look at what they are doing.

[AlbertCat]

50. Now it seems that it is ok if it benefits a particular nominee.

C'mon! It's just a few people. what do they matter? Right?

Maybe they should just round off the number of votes to the nearest "10"....up or down, whichever is "best"....

Right?

[Hortensis]

83. STATES decide whether primaries will be open or closed, not parties.

Note that most conservatives are more motivated more by hate and fear of the other side than what they want their side to accomplish. Malignant crossing of the ballot to OVERSET democratic choice is especially common these days.

I normally am for making primaries as open as possible. However, in this environment I am more for protecting the rights of party memberships to choose their own candidates without malignant interference from enemies bent on stealing it away from them.

It's unfortunate that some unaffiliated people let themselves be cut out, but I put it that way because every deadline in registering is preceded by several months to more than a year to do it. Further, most actually had literally years to join a party. Their choice entirely and always, until one day it finally isn't.

[kjones]

94. Is there proof any of these claims represent a conspiracy? Or are you just supposing hypothetically?

[LiberalFighter]

119. All one has to do is check a person's voting history and it can be determined

if the person crossed over to mess with that primary or they just vote in a primary that they prefer at the time.

[Ford_Prefect]

28. Only those in the limousines are allowed to complain?

I've been a democrat since I voted against Nixon. My position hasn't changed since. Only the party leadership has.

I am very well aware of how simple it is to hack the voting system. I participated in the dialog that lead to the NC law regarding electronic voting systems. We only got 1/2 the protections the research recommended. Many states like Arizona are much less secure.

I notice that the DNC is now suing to examine and fix the problems during the AZ primary. Interesting that it took them so long to complain about it.

[dchill]

34. We "Radicals" call ourselves Democrats.

We call you NVM.

[Hortensis]

37. Many radicals are registered Democrats. Which is to

say, they are Democrats. Yes. And many conservatives are Democrats. Most affiliated minorities are Democrats. We are a broad party.

There are also many radicals who despise Democrats and wouldn't dream of registering as one. Bernie Sanders was one of them for 50 years before he decided to use our party to advance his candidacy and further his goals of pushing our nation farther left.

Btw, strong liberals like me share many goals with far left radicals. It's radical personality we do emphatically not share.

[Mc Mike]

97. Sanders despises Dems, eh? Wonder why he caucuses with them. nt.

[Dont call me Shirley]

104. Radicals?! Now Sanders voters are Radicals?! That perverted twisted response takes the Pretzel

Prize!

[LiberalElite]

24. I wish there were a Left in the Democratic party

Sanders is a demonstration of what the Democrats used to be AND WILL BE AGAIN. "Radical" my Aunt Fanny.

[Hortensis]

36. 100% wrong. Thomas Jefferson founded the

Democratic Party, and he was, in fact, a bit of a radical in thought himself, but with the high functioning and high principles of the best liberals. He was endorsed by all colleagues who trended left by personality and/or were influenced by Enlightenment thought, and he was begged to return to state and national government many times by leaders who badly needed his competence.

In the many decades since, the Democratic Party has been mostly left, far left on some issues but never taken over by the radical left, occasionally more right, then left again.

As for your most immediate notion, I suspect you are referring to the progressive eras of our nation. The Progressive Era began with the efforts of liberals and conservatives in what was then a far, far more moderate and mixed Republican Party. The Democratic Pary of that era had become taken over by business interests, leaving the GOP the party to respond to the critical need for reforms. By the 1930s, the parties' orientations had shifted to become once again Dem left and GOP right, but still more mixed than today.

The New Deal was created by liberals and moderate conservatives from both parties working together. Political groups farther left than the Democrats, particularly radicals, were bitterly disappointed in their moderation (just like today!) and opposed FDR's New Deal because it completely failed to accomplish most of what they felt was possible and necessary. As a result those farther left than liberal Democrats had little hand in the solutions of the New Deal.

Which brings something to mind. Here's a list of free MOOCs related to politics.
https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-3252929032242305:3580054474&ie=UTF-8&q=political&sa=Search&ref=www.mooc-list.com/%3Fstatic%3Dtrue#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=political&gsc.page=1

Here's another using American history as the search term.
https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-3252929032242305:3580054474&ie=UTF-8&q=political&sa=Search&ref=www.mooc-list.com/%3Fstatic%3Dtrue#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=American%20history

All free, and usually very interesting. The few I've taken have been extremely worthwhile. I just dropped, whenever I wanted, the ones I decided I didn't like or required more investment of time than I wanted to make. I always benefited anyway. I'm off to check over these lists myself.

[enlightenment]

62. Oh, for pity's sake.

Jefferson most definitively did not found the Democratic party. The Democratic-Republican Party was NOT even close to the Democratic party of the mid-20th century. If anything, it was closer to what we would call Libertarian, but only in relationship to the existing Federalist party that Jefferson and Madison opposed. For them, the emphasis was not on the "democratic" but the "republican" part of the term - and they generally referred to the party as the "Republican party" - which was not the party of Lincoln, either.

Maybe a MOOC would help you?

[rockfordfile]

66. Essentially yes Jefferson is the founding member of the Democratic Party.

hahahaha "If anything, it was closer to what we would call Libertarian" no way in hell. How in the hell did you come up with that?

Essentially yes Jefferson is the founding member of the Democratic Party.

[enlightenment]

79. Bless your heart.

What a cute little post with the missing punctuation and bizarre reanimation of Thomas Jefferson.

[rockfordfile]

133. Oh you're a republican?

The fact that you tried to compare the founding father of the Democratic Party to the far right "basically just pos republicans" to libertarians says it all.

[Hortensis]

90. The Democratic Party is 225 years old, est. 1791!

Don't be mislead by labels. Parties and their names evolve with the times, but the Democratic Party is the oldest party in the United States, dating without interruption back to 1791, when it was founded by Jefferson and Madison to establish our new nation on liberal principles of equality of all men and to specifically oppose the conservatives' Federalist Party schemes to establish America's government and society on a privilege-based European model.

Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party, btw, today is all too closely reflected in the ideology of conservative Republicans (ergo the Federalist Society, the right's canonization of The Federalist Papers, hamiltonianism, etc.). If they'd had any idea the hoi polloi was going to believe that frivolous nonsense about equality, liberty etc. in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence -- and fight a very long, nasty war for it -- they would have fought that wording tooth and nail.

Jefferson and Madison called their new liberal party the Republican Party after our new republic, but pretty soon it was relabeled the Democratic-Republican party in part because conservatives were calling it the "democratic party" in derision for the liberal ideal of democracy and for the demands of liberals for the inclusion of what is known as the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

Over the years, the D-R party lost the label Republican altogether, and by Lincoln's day the Democratic Party had become hidebound and supportive of the spread of slavery into new territories, among other things. So a new party calling itself Republican was formed to oppose the spread of slavery, among some of those other things. It did not draw most conservatives.

Today's Republican Party bears no resemblance to the new party Lincoln joined.

Today's Democratic Party bears great resemblance to its original in its core principles. That's because now as then the Democratic Party remains committed to liberal principles that arose during the Enlightenment and were already a well developed ideology when they became the core principles stated in our Declaration of Independence and incorporated into our constitution, fortuitously firmed up by the writing and passing of the Bill of Rights -- of course by the liberal Democratic(-Republican) Party.

[enlightenment]

131. Nope.

The Democratic Party was founded in 1828.

Nice to see you did a little bit of rese!arch on the Democratic-Republican Party, though. Keep up the good work

[rockfordfile]

134. Sorry right winger, but you're not new

For some reason desperate right wingers like you try to do this crap.

Fact-Thomas Jefferson founding father of the Democratic Party.

[surrealAmerican]

26. If you were one of those "hundreds", would it matter?

By the way, those are just the people who are speaking up about it now. We don't know how many other people might be disenfranchised without even knowing about it yet.

[EdwardBernays]

32. This is the same argument people use

to defend police killing unarmed civilians...

[magical thyme]

35. hundreds that we know of.

you know the saying, for every rat you see there's 50 you don't see.

[zentrum]

43. Wise saying. Thanks.

[sulphurdunn]

45. If hundreds discover

they won't be able to vote, thousands more will also discover it on election day. But you have a point of sorts. There are 300 million people in America and only 30 thousands gun deaths annually, so it's no big deal.

[mwooldri]

64. My accountancy teacher at uni taught me this...

"If it's within a couple of bucks, it's good enough for government work."

I know what he was getting at... at times you don't need to be totally exact. But there were other times he was wanting the correct exact answer.

Should we apply this "within a couple of bucks" standard to all kinds of actual government work?

Elections, infrastructure design and build, the space program, military equipment... the creation and execution of these can't live with this kind of standard. A couple of votes one way or another can decide an election. A minor design flaw can cripple a new satellite after launch, or it might not launch at all but explode along with the rocket launching it with a minor manufacturing flaw. My 1040 tax return doesn't need to be to the penny.

On the personal level I'm okay with the fries I buy at a fast food restaurant to have approximately so many fries, but not okay if my bank balance is off a couple of bucks.

Elections are one of those things that need to be accurate and transparent.

I've never properly understood that people can belong to a political party simply by declaring a party affiliation on a voter registration card... elsewhere in the world parties run their own membership system and people who sign up with the party and pay money for doing so are considered party members. I was a card carrying member of the Liberal Democrats at one point. I got to vote for who would represent the party in elections when there was more than one person wanting to run as a LibDem in a particular race. The Conservatives and the Labour Party members didn't get a vote.

In my eyes these people (radical or otherwise) have a case because it appears to me that their party membership has been cancelled and they weren't informed why they were kicked out. Personally I wish they would have some skin in the game by paying actual membership dues (even if it's $1/year) but the system is what it is... and it needs to be accurate.

[Igel]

75. We apply that to just about everything.

If everybody who ever made a single mistake were fired and forbidden from being rehired elsewhere, nobody would have a job.

I was overcharged by a cashier yesterday at a store. If she makes a mistake on 1 in a 1000 customers, that's fine. It would be nice if she didn't, but since I'm not perfect I can't in good conscience expect her to be perfect. (Yet many imperfect beings demand perfection as a minimum from others.)

[noiretextatique]

72. So what to disenfranchisement

Haiti, Libya, Honduras, a possible indictment, disenfranchisement...who cares? Just sad.

[EdwardBernays]

31. American Democracy

is a joke and a farce...

Whoever wins the primary and the GE will just be a best guess...

There should be mass protests over these stories, including from the media, and from EVERY candidate, but instead it's mostly just crickets...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. Winning is all that matters,.....right?

[Gregorian]

40. This shit's gone far enough.

And of course, not a peep on what should have been a very important video. I'll post it again, here.

Basically, polling is created in order to camouflage the central tabulator manipulations, so as to make the total outcome the same, while giving the losing candidate the win.

And it's all based on the electronic voting machines have fractional vote counting.

[zentrum]

42. Ugly stuff.

Hope they pursue it to the end.

There are other things that hurt the (new) Democratic voter. For instance, to vote in the Democratic primary, you need to have registered last October. Six months ago. Busy, hard working people and students are not thinking about or informed about the primary so far ahead.

The voter registration tables I saw in the street several months ago were already too late for the primary.

The DNC establishment, in fact, wants to suppress this segment of the vote, especially in the primary, so they get the anointed one. Infuriating.

[bkkyosemite]

51. They coronated the queen and wanted no one to disturb that.

[jwirr]

44. The answer to this is immediately open the primary. Not as

a long term change which needs to be changed later but as an answer to this immediate problem. This has happened in more than one state so far. If the party takes this direction of just opening the primary then it may stop it in later states or at least end the effect.

[George II]

47. A waste of time and money - courts won't establish how individual parties choose their candidates.

Their suit shouldn't be directed toward the nature of the primary, but how their affiliation was presumably changed.

[bkkyosemite]

49. The system is rigged. Even the polls in NY are not moving an inch...I beleive that there

is corruption behind the scenes that the public will eventually find out just how bad it is. One person one vote, transparent for all to see, open to any one who wants to vote.

[beastie boy]

54. And the Hillary conspiracy theories are about to pop up in 3...2...1 seconds.

...Oh wait, I am way too slow!

[ronnykmarshall]

120. Of course.

I checked my registration and it somehow was flagged "inactive". Did I post some scathing bullshit that Bernie and his storm trooper fucked with my registration to prevent me from voting of Hillary in California? No, I got off my ass re-registered and followed up to make sure it was updated.

I swear to god, people need to take matters in their own hands and double check WAY BEFORE the election. Took me probably 10 minutes to check and fix the issue.

[Zen Democrat]

57. Even Texas has always had open primaries.

On primary day you appear and declare for a party, the name of which is stamped on your voter registration card in case a run-off is needed. Most people stay within their own preferred party's primary because no self-respecting Texas Democrat would ever carry around a voter card stamped "REPUBLICAN" because it would be exposed during the General.

[ConsiderThis_2016]

63. 1 Person... 1 Vote!

How much simpler can it be? :-/ Why do they need to know who your going to vote for?

[Igel]

77. Because these aren't state or federal elections.

This is an election on par with choosing the president of a student union or a gardening club. It's just run by the state because it's convenient or the state has an interest in governing those private organizations and their members (not that those organizations much mind, since they don't have to raise funds for the elections).

The two political parties will choose their own nominees at the state level given their own rules, and since they're members of the national parties they'll participate in that. Other political parties will use their own rules to determine their own delegates. And if you're not in a party, there are ways to qualify for the ballot and run as president.

Don't see much Constitutional authority saying that private organizations have to have one man, one vote. Heck, we don't really even have federal elections in this country. They're all state elections. Senators and representatives, electors ... Not much more.

[GoneFishin]

67. It's disgusting regardless. But I would like to know what the split was among the various

candidates' supporters.

[Else You Are Mad]

80. We should be worried...

Remember what happened in 2000? Election fraud gave us 8 years of Bush and two wars.

I am against election fraud be it against Democrats or Republicans, disenfranchisement is a serious crime & has disastrous consequences.

[SCVDem]

84. Why does one vote matter?

Because it is a RIGHT!

Now let's deny one single person a gun and you will see just how important a different right is to others.

I vote so I can bitch about the result.

No vote, no bitching!

[barbtries]

93. dirty tricks.

ugh.

[LiberalFighter]

99. If there is a possible indicator that a voter might have had their party affliliation changed

it would be by checking their prior voting history. There should be a record indicating if they voted in Democratic primaries. If they show voting in a Republican primary the previous primary then they probably didn't change it back or never intended to. If they have a history of voting in Democratic primaries then they would have a stronger case.

[ronnykmarshall]

108. Always check your registration.

Mine showed 'inactive' yet I have voted in every election since I moved to my current address in 2008. It also had be listed to auto receive absentee ballots.

I just had to re-reg online. I was updated in a few days.

[ronnykmarshall]

121. Sounds like a bunch of Trumps kids .....

Check your fucking registration.

[L. Coyote]

130. Shaving points works best if you shave points 100 different ways at once.

This makes 101. Damn Republicans, can't win fairly, gotta cheat.

[Javaman]

135. the "Arizona-ing" of New York. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

138. Too late, whiners, you are pwned. NY is Hillary's.

In some states, you can change your mind up until the last minute. In NY, I guess you have to know six months in advance.

Maybe a favorable ruling will come on Wednesday.