Hey, there! Log in / Register
Secretary of State wants to make vote by mail permanent - and proposes Election Day voter registration
By adamg on Tue, 02/09/2021 - 11:55am
WFXT reports Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin will file legislation to make last year's Covid-19-related mail-in voting permanent and to let voters register to vote or change their addresses at their polling places on Election Day.
Topics:
Free tagging:
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
Yes to all of this.
Make voting easier for every single person.
Next step: Abolish
the requirement that voters must choose a specific party's primary ballot to exercise their constitutional right to vote, and place all candidates (including independents) on a single primary ballot.
Like California?
Are you suggesting that Massachusetts work to a system like California where the top 2 finishers in the primary proceed to the general even if they are from the same party?
I admit, this appeals to me, but I haven’t done enough research to be firmly for or against it.
That’s one option
You can also have open primaries where anyone can vote in any party primary, regardless of party affiliation.
I turned 18 in VA and this is the system they use.
MA is currently open primary.
If you chose to remain an unenrolled voter (or ‘independent’ in the old parlance) you may choose either a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot. There plenty of MA voters who would identify verbally as a D or an R, but keep an unenrolled status as to pick and choose which primaries to vote in.
roadman is suggesting that all candidates from all parties be on one primary ballot. I wonder what are the options for such a system besides a “top two” California-style system? Do all voters choose both the Dem and the GOP nominee in state and local races?
But Massachusetts still makes unenrolled voters
choose a specific party ballot in order to vote. That is not the same as an open primary.
Forgive me if I am wrong
It is my understanding that the current primary system we have on Massachusetts is named an open primary. This is compared to a NY-style closed primary where you have to be registered with a party before the primary election and unenrolled voters are completely shut out of the process and can’t just roll up to the polls on primary day like MA unenrolled voters.
If I am wrong and there is better nomenclature to describe MA’s primary system then I happily stand corrected. But yes, MA primaries are not fully open the way you propose above.
MA is semi-open
If you’re registered to a party, you can only vote in that party’s primary unless you change your party enrollment ahead of an election. Only “unenrolled” voters in MA can pick a party ballot on primary day.
VA is fully open (party affiliation doesn’t matter - just tell them which primary you want to vote in).
NY is fully closed - only those enrolled in a party can vote in that party’s primary.
CA / WA are open “top two” where all candidates, regardless of party, run in the primary and the top two vote getters, regardless of party, face off in the final.
AK voted this year to move to a “top 4” open primary with instant runoff.
This is why MA did not automatically mail primary ballots
to voters, because the state would in many cases not know which party's ballot to send. That required the extra step of sending in an application for a ballot.
This is a terrible idea
Unless you have Instant Runoff Voting, all candidates on a single primary ballot is a terrible idea.
Consider you have the following candidates:
* David Dykema
* Dinah Davidson
* Dino Digg
* Dinesh Donovan
* Deborah Duke
* Duke De La Cruz
* Dinah Dykestra
* Roger Robinson
* Rachel Rogers
* Ivan Igloo
where the first seven are Democrats, the next two Republicans, and the last an Independent. Who do you think wins? Probably Roger or Rachel, even if they each get 14% of the vote and the seven Democrats combined for 68%.
Top two? Same problem! If one party has two candidates and the other party has many, you get terrible election dynamics. Pssst... this technique has also historically been awesome for keeping Black candidates from winning (and was the nudge nudge wink wink reason why it's used in quite a few states).
IRV solves it, but without IRV, a "jungle primary" is a disaster.
Magoo sez
Magoo was elected president of Magoo’s Junior High Tiddily Winks Club. Magoo’s platform was “A Vote for Magoo is a Vote for More Tiddilies and Less Winks”. Magoo.
Go away
Confine your nonsense to fluff threads.
Pat Paulsen
Pat was doing Magoo's routine decades ago.
What next? A new Monty Python? Rarely are sequels as good as the original.
What a difference a few years (and a pandemic) make.
I distinctly remember Galvin dismissing Josh Zakim's proposals for Election Day registration and expanded mail-in voting as unworkable in debates and forums. Now he has co-opted these wonderful ideas as his own.
Sheesh!
That's rather arrogant!
Change comes slowly, at first
Change comes slowly, at first? Certainly over the past year, we've heard quite a bit about the barriers that stand in the way of many citizens from being able to cast their ballot; compelling arguments have been made to justify making it easier for citizens to exercise their civic rights in casting their ballots.
If this goes through
it will negate any reason for not having a special election for mayor in Boston.
This will be great as long as
This will be great as long as there is control and accountability.
Republicans will tell you that in a republic you are not
guaranteed any right to include the right to vote. It is a position Mike Lee,Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and the MAGOP espouse. It is the same argument made during reconstruction and by the opponents to the Civil Rights Act. It is the basis of a version of "federalism" that restricts power to some. Personified in Newt Gingrich and spun as "liberty" by Rand Paul.
Yep
Republicans know that their only chance to retain power is by preventing people from voting.
It's a mixed bag.
It's a mixed bag.
Good/useful to maintain some flexibility and options in access to voting. Especially so when we don't know what the next emergency might be - it's good to legislate ad best as can be done based on recent experience (especially when there's time for the legislative branch to do so, as opposed to improvising by executive actions (that heads off some legal challenges))
Not good if it creates parallel courses and confusion, especially on deadlines and verifying who is actually registered. There's no reason for general, all-voters distribution of mail-in ballots without request - people can request an absentee/mail ballot if they need/want one, that system has worked for years. The voting rolls need to be finalized at some point before regular Election Day, so the roll books can be generated and annotate who is active, who has requested mail ballot, who has already voted - any registration after that (IF any) should be central location only and provisional/challenge ballot only.
---
...and this should be bundled with (a) getting rid of the ridiculous practice of uniformed police working the polls, and (b) actually enforcing electioneering laws for polling-place entrances.