85 Comments - Colossus - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:07 pm: Having an open primary will allow any individual to weigh in on any race, not just the races in a single party. Our system only benefits the party organizations right now. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:08 pm: Yes, we’ve moved past the days when nominees were decided by a bunch of rich white dudes in a smoke filled room, the closer we put the election process to the people the better. - Notice he didn’t say “register to vote online.” - As I understand it, that is the governor’s intent. - Dan Johnson - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:10 pm: Arizona is the model we should follow to implement the Governor’s call. If you have a drivers license or state ID, then you can register to vote online in their system. So that means this is something that Jesse White would have to do. Check it out: https://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/selectLanguage or here: http://www.dmv.org/az-arizona/voter-registration.php Here’s how they explain it: Registering to vote is simple if you use the online EZ Voter Registration service. However, you must have a valid digital signature on file with Arizona’s MVD to do so (digital signatures are usually recorded when you apply for an Arizona driver license or identification card). After you register, your electronic application will be transferred from Arizona’s MVD to the county recorder by the Secretary of State. Once your application is processed by the county recorder, you will receive a voter registration card in the mail within six weeks. If you do not have a digital signature on file with the MVD, you can visit any United States post office, MVD office, or third-party office to fill out an application in person. You do not need to re-register to vote before each election, as your information will remain on file until you change it. However, if you change your address or realign your party affiliation, you will need to register again. - Midstate Indy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:13 pm: To take a different interpretation, closed primary voters do not have to declare a preference at the polling place either. Gov didn’t specifically enumerate open primaries. - Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:14 pm: What the United States should have is multi-party democracy where the law is not used to artificially enforce a two-party system. Once this happens the government should get out of the business of holding primaries for the parties. - Skeeter - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:16 pm: Yes, we need something like the California system where the two top candidates, regardless of party, advance to the general. The current system rewards a candidate for pandering to the extremes. In a 60/40 D district, the 40 do not matter. In a modified system, a conservative Dem would have the edge. The end result will be that we elect more moderates. - Champaign County Clerk Gordy Hulten - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:18 pm: In Champaign County, we have an NVRA (Motor Voter) form on our website that is a PDF form that can be typed into, printed out, signed and mailed/delivered: http://champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/docs/nvra.pdf We also offer similar functionality, but with secure dropboxes, at voter registration kiosks on the UI and Parkland College campuses. The IL State Board of Elections has something similar (http://elections.il.gov/DocDisplay.aspx?Doc=Downloads/VotingInformation/PDF/R-19.pdf) in both English and Spanish. I interpreted Gov. Quinn’s SOTS remarks about online voter registration to be taking it a step further and including transmission online, rather than an original signature on a paper document generated online. - Bill - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:22 pm: The last time Quinn fooled around with the election process was when he got the size of the House reduced. Look how well that turned out. I voted no. I like it the way it is. - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:30 pm: Yes, the motivations behind party declaration are an open secret: control your payrollers and gather data for fundraising. - Skirmisher - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:30 pm: Yes. The current system is meant only to beneift the party pols, but the taxpayers are made to foot the bill for the primary elections. I think that is an outrage. Most of us, even if we characterize oursleves as being generally one party or the other, are not professional, die-hard party members, and our interest in the primary process is to try to assure two reasonably good condidates are facing off in the general election. - Pandora - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:32 pm: I guess I should have read the comments first, I’ve been persuaded, so move my “no” vote to a yes. - Dirty Red - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:33 pm: I voted “Yes” even though the powers that be probably won’t let this one happen. 1) Voting should not be punished by a lifetime supply of robo-calls. 2) People shouldn’t have to fear voting in a primary because there could be negative consequences for taking the “wrong” ballot. 3) Doesn’t the system in place hurt moderates? - dupage dan - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:35 pm: === - Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:14 pm: What the United States should have is multi-party democracy where the law is not used to artificially enforce a two-party system === That creates a mess - just look at England. There really is a “silly party” there (snark). The coalitions that have to be entered into make them look like extremists. - reformer - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:35 pm: One form of open primary is to simply keep private the voter’s choice of party. The voter would still be permitted to vote in only one party primary. It’s just that no one else would have access to that information, any more than anyone does about which candidates we voted for. When this question has appeared on the ballot in recent years, it typically garners 80%+ support in nonbinding referendums. The most recent one was one on the ballot near Springfield last spring thanks to a Springfield alderman who has championed the reform for many years. - Under Paid - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:37 pm: “Texas, for instance, allows you to fill out a form online, print it and then mail it in. That seems to be the norm.” That strickes me as a way for quick and easy voter fraud. For example, by using the mail one has a low cost way to register multiple times. One also has an easy way to become a registered voter without being a US citizen. I see mail registration as a way to reduce the integerity of a voting system which has numerous holes in it. The only part of the idea I like is the part about filling out and printing of the registration form. This will cut government cost, processing time, and improve data quality (so many people have such bad handwriting). - Andrew - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:40 pm: I voted “yes”. I believe Illinois would be better served by adopting a primary system similar to the one in California. The two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party, advance to the general election. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:43 pm: In the purely polical operational perspective, I would vote NO, no, 1000 times … NO! Running canididates with out a base of a voting universe to go for known “D”s or “R”s has to be an operational nightmare. You would then have to base your idea of strong or weak precincts, as opposed to an “X” number of “Hard R’s” or the handfull of “Soft D’s”…It is worse than the University of Illinois numbers being the base of how strong a precinct was in the “straight party voting” days, because well beyond a vast amount of the U of I trustee votes only came from straight party “One Punch” voting. So No… On the other hand, I would vote “Yes” as to give my party a fighting chance to appeal to more voters, given that you hear often… “I like (Blank), and would vote for them, but I then have to pull a Republican ballot, and the pulling of the ballot and declaring Republican doesn’t appeal to me. I hope (Blank) gets out of the Republican primary, I would probably vote for them, but who knows how that will go…” There is a better chance the Reagan Democrats, the Moderates, and Conservative Democrats may give a Republican candidate a different look, vote the the Republican to get to the General, and possibly stay with our nominee… The flip side … making a mockery of the primary for the “other” side, voting for their worst nominee, especially …especially… in all the General Assembly seats, or in a low count township or county jurisdiction…. So I voted “No”, do I think I voted correctly on this “question” … nope. Had I voted “Yes” do I think that voted would have been the correct vote…nope. But, becasue I had to choose, I chose “No”, because in a purely political animal view, I knew dropping straight party was a bad idea, and I think this is going down that road as well. I will be in the Minority, probably by a wide margin, but hey, I would rather worry about 220 voters in a precinct for a primary that pull “R” ballots, instead of either hitting all 600+ households, or cherry-picking what I believe and be wrong. I will now take my public flogging. Good Question, Rich. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:45 pm: ===Yes, the motivations behind party declaration are an open secret: control your payrollers and gather data for fundraising.=== Yep, - wordslinger -, and the politcal animal in me knows its “wrong”, but oh so helpful and “right”… - Wensicia - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:46 pm: Yes, I’m for a blanket primary in which you can choose candidates from either party. - Anonish - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:48 pm: I voted No. If people think campaigns are expensive now, what happens when you can’t target your contacts and mail to a persuadable audience. The expense of doubling or tripling printing and mailings would demand even more aggressive fundraising and less time focusing on legislation and constituent services. The current system isn’t perfect but I don’t see this helping our state’s image of political corruption. - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:49 pm: I voted no. I fear change. - Ahoy! - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:49 pm: Yes, publically funded elections should not be a subsidization of party politics. Additionally, I believe we should not have Republican and Democratic ballots and we need to move to open ballots that allow you to vote for people and not parties. California has an interesting new model that we should consider. - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:53 pm: –Yes, I’m for a blanket primary in which you can choose candidates from either party.– Me, too. In Illinois, the two major parties scratch each others backs to keep the establishment clubs small and to keep insurgents out. There’s nothing in either the U.S. or Illinois Constitution that gives special rights and protections to the two parties. That comes from statute. - Will Caskey - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:54 pm: Yes? No? I don’t understand the appeal, or even what he’s going for. Is this a jungle primary type thing where the top two vote-getters advance, ie California? The ability to just vote in whatever primary for each office on the ballot? I’m not opposed to it, I’m just confused why it’s worth the effort/advocacy. - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:55 pm: –I voted no. I fear change.– LOL, we can all put our lamps down. With 47 and Willie, we’ve found two honest men. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:59 pm: === –I voted no. I fear change.– LOL, we can all put our lamps down. With 47 and Willie, we’ve found two honest men.=== I can’t tell you how I laughed when - 47th Ward - posted that, because, well … that really IS the short answer for me too. Nop use saying I would be for it, if I ain’t… - OneMan - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:04 pm: Guess I am confused about the primary thing, so I could vote in both parties primaries? Then question 2 becomes, how do you manage the ‘there needs to be x Republicans and X democrats’ stuff? Do the parties get then say who is what? - Cincinnatus - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:10 pm: Absolutely not. Why should a Democrat determine a Republican candidate, or committeeman, and vice versa. Too much room for shenanigans. - justbabs - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:10 pm: I voted yes. And I think it is exactly the opposite of what PQ did in limiting the size of the legislature. I have a bit of optimism left that tells me that candidates will have to appeal to all voters and not just the “hard” Ds or Rs. This may sound all too Pollyanna-ish, but it really can’t be any worse than it is right now. I’m game for any effort to improve the system. - MikeMacD - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:12 pm: No. The question isn’t clear to me what it’s asking. Is it simply the public recording of which party ballot you pulled, can you pick and choose which race you vote in, California style, or some other configuration? - muon - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:16 pm: There are lots of options that meet the Governor’s SoS statement. Many of them have been described in current posts and range from partisan primaries with masked selection all the way to fully open jungle primaries like California. Perhaps a follow up QotD would be to select which type of primary would be preferred if there is a change. - Wensicia - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:17 pm: ==Why should a Democrat determine a Republican candidate== Who says that can’t do that now by requesting a Republican ballot? - downstate commissioner - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:20 pm: Am confused, too OneMan. Like the idea of having an open primary, with voting one party OR the other secretly. In our county, if you don’t vote in party X’s primary, you simply do not have a vote, because party Y never puts up candidates, so the primary is, in actual fact, the general election. If for various reasons you cannot publicly vote for the other party, you have no say in the election process. For a “party” process to work obviously no one should be allowed to vote in both party’s primary. I would think that in these days of electronic voting, the computer could easily be programmed to accept votes in only one party, kicking the ballot back if voting is done on both parties. - Spliff - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:20 pm: I voted NO. I have known caucus directors in some of the states that don’t have declaired primary voting. This does nothing to cut down on the calls or mail that you receive. The state parties in Wisconsin keep very detailed records on registered voters even without knowledge of party and spend lots of time and money identifying each voter and what issues move them to vote. In illinois we know your primary voting and the party keeps crappy records on contacts of issues of voters. - Endangered Moderate Species - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:22 pm: OW at 1:43- I think you have had too much coffee. I voted yes. Moderates fair better in open primaries. - downstate commissioner - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:23 pm: Wensica, you can, if you don’t care if people know that you voted for the “other” party; in some cases, though, a person can’t just switch party affiliation without repercussions… - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:26 pm: === ==Why should a Democrat determine a Republican candidate== Who says that can’t do that now by requesting a Republican ballot?=== It happens now, yes, but under the Open Primary suggestion, the question may be, “Do I vote for MY guy who I know will be in the Top 2, or for this Dope here, so I know the path is easier come General Election time and “mess” with the other party?” I will say this, if you think “some” of the Chicago Republican Committteemen aren’t really Republicans, if the Open Primary included Township and City Ward Committeeman, think how many “Ghost” Committeeman … MAY … win the GOP Primary … Voting for City Ward, Township, and County Committeeman would be the ULTIMATE nightmare in places. I do not have the 1st clue how that would be resolved, nor do I want to be party to that, because more than one person will call it unfair, and they maybe right. Just saying … it’s … possible. - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:27 pm: –Absolutely not. Why should a Democrat determine a Republican candidate, or committeeman, and vice versa. Too much room for shenanigans.– Not following you there, Cincy. You can currently vote in any primary you want (still a choice of three, I believe). I’ve voted in GOP, Dem and Green primaries. Back in the day (still today, in some areas?), strong GOP or Dem organizations would routinely elect loyalists as committeemen for the opposing party. That way, on election day, the election judges from both parties would be under the thumb of the strong organization. That’s where the voter fraud came from — voting folks who didn’t show up after the polls closed. Not a bunch of goofs without picture IDs and wearing Groucho glasses, pretending to be someone they were not. That’s why returns came in “late.” That was an established Illinois business practice, all over the state, for decades. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:31 pm: I’m living proof that views do change every once in a while. Only because I feel that “parties” in general seem to have less of an abiity to “self-regulate” as time goes by, I think the spinners and the “consultants” who make an outrageous amount of money (for simple analyses thanks to huge donations), need to work a bit harder for their money. - Way Northsider - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:31 pm: One should not have to declare a party affiliation in public to get a ballot. Many people don’t necessarily want to advertise their political leanings and therefore avoid voting in primaries. Also, one should be able to split ones vote between the parties depending on which race one is voting for. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:32 pm: ===OW at 1:43- I think you have had too much coffee. I voted yes. Moderates fair better in open primaries. === I am totally talking about the operational aspect, and in an open primary I dunno with the stellar ground game the GOP has right now, that we could make it work by going in blind on our universe of voters., plus the cost of now the universe of voters is greater, and further, how do you know who could be targeted as “undecided”. Lots of voter contact needed … “Call me… Maybe?” No, I still vote “No” for every wrong reason possible. I will roll the dice, RECRUIT BETTER, work precincts better, work smarter, mail better, and get a much better, stronger message out, as my option as opposed to what “tools” I have now, nothing better, AND opening the Primary up! Smells like disaster, much like, very early on, we Republicans learned dunping straight party tunred on us quickly in the precincts. I get ya, I am sure you are right and I am wrong, but gotta go “No”. - cynically anonymous - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:35 pm: As an independent, it has always irked me that in contested primaries I have to choose which races are most important to me - county (always Democratic) or local (almost always Republican) As a result of making that choice, I am now bombarded with phone calls and mailings from BOTH sides. - Bill - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:36 pm: ==That was an established Illinois business practice, all over the state, for decades.== Ah, the good old days. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:36 pm: - Why should a Democrat determine a Republican candidate, or committeeman, and vice versa. - You can’t switch parties in this state? Who knew. I thought the IL GOP didn’t like people that always voted for one party no matter what, you know, those “low information voters” in Chicago? - BJG - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:37 pm: http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/VotingInformation/PDF/R-19.pdf Online form to register to vote… We have that already. - Bitterman - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:41 pm: Yes. Argued for it in a mock GA back in the 80’s (lost of course) but its the right thing to do. I have family and friends who have never voted in a primary because that do not want to be pegged by party bosses. They hate like heck not being able to vote for a primary candidate. I think it infringes on a voter’s rights. - titan - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:42 pm: “Notice he didn’t say “register to vote online.” Texas, for instance, allows you to fill out a form online, print it and then mail it in. That seems to be the norm. I can’t believe we don’t have that simple option here.” You have been able to fill in a registration form online, print it out, and mail it in for a while in Illinois. The Governor obviously meant that he was after the former - to be able to register online without having to print out or mail anything in (like Mr. Johnson describes above). - Liberty_First - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:42 pm: Voted no…. the strongest party candidates need to win not the fringe people. - Earnest - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:45 pm: I voted yes. I worry that my elected representatives will be less receptive to me if I pulled a ballot from the opposing party in the most recent election. I don’t consider myself a member of any political party but still want the right to vote for candidates in primaries so there’s a better chance of having someone I want to vote for in the general. OW made good points, but didn’t sway my vote. - Skeptic - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:45 pm: “Why should a Democrat determine a Republican candidate?” And why shouldn’t independents be able to express their opinion? I wanted to add something about if the independents can express their opinion on Primary day, then chances of that candidate winning on General day increase because the candidate that won the primary presumably was already able to attract those highly coveted swing voters, but I can’t find a way to state it eloquently. So I won’t. Unless Wordsmith or OW can find a way. - Endangered Moderate Species - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:46 pm: =not the fringe people= Yep, we wouldn’t want the fringe people getting in the way of Lyndon LaRouche, Alan Keyes or Joe Walsh. - Fred's Mustache - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:52 pm: If you don’t have to declare a party, then why have primaries at all? Why not just have a single free for all election? I mean, if we are all worried about party control and all… - Ahoy! - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:56 pm: I wonder since I’m a moderate independent if my voting rights are being disenfranchised due to our primary system. If I want to vote (and I do) I am forced to pick a party ballot. What if I want to vote for a Republican Governor and a Democratic Senator? In a primary I have to choose which one I can vote for and cannot vote for the other. It seems like my rights have been marginalized due to the party structure of our primaries, and paid for by the taxpayers. I am paying for my own disenfranchisement… that’s irritating. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 2:56 pm: - Skeptic -, I will try, its the arguement against my woeful “No” explanation: While both parties, especially the GOP in Illinois, need moderates to win in the General Election, the Open Primary allows any candidate that appeals to those Independents craving a voice for “Candidate X”, but does not want to participate in a labeling process, and that process is not allowing them to “cafeteria” vote; choosing the best Governor candidate that may be a Republican, and the Best Attorney General candidate, who may be a Democrat, or visa versa. With pure heart, this voter is torn and does not vote, helping no candidates that the voter feels strogly could be helpful for the citizens. Open Primaries welcome a new universe of voters, who in reality, decide the General Election, so why not help in the weeding out process of the Primary to get the 2 BEST candidates to the General Election … given that they are true of heart. An instance of more participation leading to better candidates, and better results in the long run. (whisper) How’s that, - Skeptic -? - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:03 pm: ==That was an established Illinois business practice, all over the state, for decades.== Ah, the good old days.== Lol, Bill knows what I’m talking about. Back in 1982, Fast Eddie for Adlai and Pate for Big Jim were voting folks into December. Lot of organizations around the state were doing the same. It took Seymour Simon to finally stick it to Adlai. Revenge, as we know, is a dish best served cold. - Fred's Mustache - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:09 pm: === a person can’t just switch party affiliation without repercussions… === Is this even true anymore? Aren’t the hacks the only one who would suffer repercussions? === One should not have to declare a party affiliation in public to get a ballot. === Then vote absentee… don’t even need an excuse anymore. === Argued for it in a mock GA back in the 80’s (lost of course) but its the right thing to do. I have family and friends who have never voted in a primary because that do not want to be pegged by party bosses. They hate like heck not being able to vote for a primary candidate. I think it infringes on a voter’s rights.=== The right thing to do? Didn’t know this was an issue of right or wrong. Your family and friends don’t vote in primaries because they dont want to be “pegged by party bosses”? Give me a break. You think it is an infringement of rights? It sounds to me like they exercised their rights… the right NOT to vote in a primary. This is 2013 people… you gotta get over this conspiracy mentality that bad things will happen to you if you “pull the wrong ballot” - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:12 pm: ===I wonder since I’m a moderate independent if my voting rights are being disenfranchised due to our primary system.=== Nobody is being disenfranchised. Primaries are party nominations, not elections. If you want to vote in the Republican primary, you need to be a Republican and vice versa with the Democratic Party. If you are an independent, start your own political party and you can have your own primary. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:15 pm: ===Nobody is being disenfranchised. Primaries are party nominations, not elections. If you want to vote in the Republican primary, you need to be a Republican and vice versa with the Democratic Party. If you are an independent, start your own political party and you can have your own primary.=== That is why they call them “Party Primaries” …. right? Well said. - muon - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:19 pm: Fred’s M - The California system is essentially a single election, except that the top two go to a runoff. To some degree it’s how Chicago elects Aldermen. There’s an open primary and if no candidate exceeds 50% it goes to a runoff of the top two. The difference in California is that the top two go to the general election even if one candidate exceeds 50%. - Ahoy! - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:21 pm: –Primaries are party nominations, not elections.– Then why are the publicly funded? I do not believe it’s right for tax money to go toward your party’s nomination process. - Benji - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:22 pm: =That’s why Illinois should join 15 other states in making voter registration available online. We must move our election process into the 21st century.= I voted no only because it is hypocritical that he wants to join 15 states on this issue but won’t join 49 other states in the 21st century on 2A issues. - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:23 pm: ===Then why are the publicly funded?=== That might be good for another QOTD, but that’s not today’s question. - PublicServant - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:24 pm: I voted yes to offset Cincy’s vote since I didn’t have to declare my party affiliation. - muon - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:32 pm: OW, State law just calls them general primaries. In some jurisdictions nonpartisan offices are elected on that day. - Pelon - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:34 pm: I voted yes. When I read through these comments, most party members want to require me as an independent taxpayer to pay for the primary but not give me the ability to vote in it. I don’t see how you can justify that. If you want me to pay for it, you have to let me vote. If you want to pay for it yourself, I have no problem with you wanting to exclude me. The argument that I can start my own political party and have my own primary is a weak argument. I’m an independent because I don’t want to be in a political party. - walkinfool - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:35 pm: yes, the benefits outweigh the shortcomings - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:35 pm: Awww…thanks for the memory, word. Justice Simon…what a kind and gentle soul who also had a wicked sense of humor at times. (Absolutely no snark in that statement. Just reflecting on some wonderful memories.) - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:38 pm: ===If you want me to pay for it, you have to let me vote.=== Who is stopping you from voting? - Just The Way It Is One - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:45 pm: Sure/why not? Greater voter participation, at least in theory, should lead to a Greater Democracy. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:48 pm: Hey - Anonymous -, which one are YOU? Not going to start anything, I just want to know so I don’t offend the wrong one of you … - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:48 pm: I am not only for not declaring a party, I am also for cross ballot primaries. The two major parties have legislated themselves into a cozy deal supported with everybody’s tax money. That taxation without representation thing…and enhancing our ability to weigh in on our choices to the extent possible, are my “primary” motivations. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:53 pm: I’m afraid it’s a little too late “to not offend,” Willy. And if you don’t know which I am, then you obviously don’t know much about me or who I am, though you might like to pretend you do. - Arthur Andersen - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 3:57 pm: No. When Illinois tries to “fix elections”, the usual result is more “fixed elections.” Let’s wait until we have more competent governance for starters. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:04 pm: - Anonymous -, Ok, Cool! Just want to make sure since so many hijack your name. Thanks for making clear! - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:07 pm: You’re welcome, Willy. - Susiejones - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:09 pm: I voted yes. seems it would, in theory, increase more participation, if all those folks who say they don’t want to declare a party would actually vote in a primary. it really isn’t anyone’s business but mine as to who I vote for and I like to cross over party lines for different offices. can’t do that in the primaries so I have to declare. lost my job as an election judge when I took the “wrong” ballot in the primary. knew I would but the person I wanted to vote for in that particular primary was of the “other” party. - Skeptic - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:15 pm: OW: “(whisper) How’s that, - Skeptic -? ” Charles Dickens’ birthday was yesterday. I don’t think he could have done much better. - TRL WGN 1 - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:15 pm: The IL State Board of Elections also offers an online tool to fill out a registration form online (different than the previously posted fillable pdf). This tools walks the applicant through the process step-by-step, indicating required fields. However, current law still requires this form to be printed, signed, and sent to the appropriate authority. https://ovr.elections.il.gov/default.aspx The tool is currently shut off since the standard registration period is closed for the February Primary (to try and reduce voter confusion). The system will become live again after February 26th. - reformer - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:21 pm: == Why should a Democrat determine a Republican candidate, or committeeman, and vice versa. Too much room for shenanigans. == That wouldn’t happen (more than it does now) if primary voters were still permitted to vote in just one party’s primary, but their party choice were kept private. Suzijones makes a good case for it. - MikeMacD - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:21 pm: The argument against picking and choosing which race you can vote in (e.g. D in one race, R in the next race down the ballot) is that most primaries are uncontested, especially when an incumbent is involved. If the one party has a viable candidate and shall we say an “odd ball” on the ballot then what’s to stop members of the other party from voting for the “odd ball” since the candidate in their party’s race wins with 1 vote? There wouldn’t be much of a choice in the general election. - RWP - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:28 pm: No. It is a party election. If we want to do away with it (such as California)then that might work. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:30 pm: - Skeptic -, - Ahoy! - posted at the same time, the same response, so for both of us , Thanks, too kind, I hope Dickens won’t roll over in his grave! - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:30 pm: –That creates a mess - just look at England. There really is a “silly party” there (snark). The coalitions that have to be entered into make them look like extremists. – What do you mean by that? Do you see a lot of extremist governing coalitions in the UK (not England — Wales, Scotland, Ulster)? - Darienite - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:31 pm: In many areas, the only contests occur at the Primary Level, as the other party doesn’t run a candidate. In so doing, many of us ‘Independents’ become default Democrats or Republicans. I voted ‘yes’ for that reason. - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 4:35 pm: Willie, wouldn’t you want to remove barriers for folks to vote in a GOP primary? Last I looked, in Illinois, less than 30% self-identify as Republicans. That’s canary-in-the-coal-mine stuff, dude. You need Independents (many of whom were formerly Republicans) in a hurry. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.