WA State voters must declare party affiliation for vote to count ??

www.heraldnet.com...

"High voter turnout expected but you’ll have to choose a party"

Hello ATS,

My very first post so feel free to advise if I did not adhere to posting guidelines.

Does this not allow for people to now know who you vote for? It completely negates the "secret ballot" This is also a potential case for taxation without representation. This is a violation ...to not have my vote count!


This is also has potential for voter harassment. Red flags!
Maybe I am misreading?

From the article:

"To have their ballot counted, voters will have to say they are a member of the political party of the candidate they are backing."

"A voter’s ballot is secret, but the party they choose is public information, Fell said. The Auditor’s Office provides that information to the parties and retains the data for 60 days. It’s available for others, upon request, for political purposes."

Thanks ATS



Moderator Note:
Please review - Posting work by others.

edit on 2/22/2020 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ronjer

How are they going to cheat unless they know which votes not to count

They have no fracking need to know, a general election doesn't require party affiliation...

So now you have to express party loyalty to vote in that cesspool of a state wow... just wow.

a reply to: ronjer

You did fine!!

Gee, Washington state doing something of this nature... Color me surprised...not.

One of the reasons I left. Even SE Washington is succumbing to it.

This is wrong. It's no one's business but yours as to what party you affiliate with, or no party, for that matter. What's next, you have to join the Party in order to vote, at all??

Not good.

a reply to: 10uoutlaw

Probably more truth to that then many would/will want to admit to...

Not exactly. All it says is that you must choose either a Dem or GOP ballot. If you choose GOP all you get to vote for is Trump. If you use the Dem ballot, you get the whole bevy of crackpots to choose from. Your only declaration is that you won't vote a Dem ballot, then go to the GOP caucus to "choose" Trump. This year it doesn't matter, but in previous years it would prevent you from voting in the primary one way and going to the caucus of the opposing party and vote that way as well.

The idea is that the Dems get to choose their party's nominee and so does the GOP. This is an attempt to hinder cross-voting, a time-honored tradition in Washington (State) The idea here is to vote for the weakest DEM candidate in hopes of advancing him to the General election where he will get trounced.

BUT THERE IS NOTHING PREVENTING YOU FROM VOTING A DEM BALLOT IN THE PRIMARY AND VOTING FOR TRUMP IN THE PRIMARY. So this won't prevent cross voting at all.

The only time this would really be a problem is during a primary where there are lots of issues and people on the ballot. If your favorite candidate for Dog Catcher was a Dem and your favorite candidate for County Coroner was a GOP, then this method would force you to vote on only one ballot IN THE PRIMARY.

The fact that you submitted a ballot is tabulated, but the actual ballot is separated from your name before it is counted, so NO, YOUR NAME IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARTY YOU VOTED FOR.

This is a non-problem.

a reply to: ronjer

Schuyler beat me to it while I was reading the article. I was under the impression that you could only vote for your registered party in every primary, in every state...

So I am surprised to find out that wasnt the case in Washington.

As an independent, I never get a primary vote.

a reply to: schuyler

Perhaps so. But it shouldn't be separate ballots. One size fits all is the way it should be.

It's, at best, a slippery slope.

I live in Florida and I am an Independent, so I cannot vote in the Primaries either.

www.miaminewtimes.com...

a reply to: seagull

I am trying really hard not to use the C word in regards to the current crop of democrats but they seem intent on forcing us to say it.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: schuyler

Perhaps so. But it shouldn't be separate ballots. One size fits all is the way it should be.

It's, at best, a slippery slope.

"Perhaps so"????? Your entire premise was wrong. It was Fake News, Disinformation. You didn't check, and you ran with it without even understanding the issues. OP - and every post subsequent before mine - was entirely wrong. Now your popping up with a different issue proclaiming it "should be" only one ballot. Well, it isn't. But that is a separate issue.

a reply to: schuyler

Easy there...

The fact that I leaped to a conclusion is self-evident. There, feel better now??

Doesn't change my opinion that there shouldn't be separate ballots.

I hate party affiliation. The divisive two party system needs to be abolished.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: schuyler

Perhaps so. But it shouldn't be separate ballots. One size fits all is the way it should be.

It's, at best, a slippery slope.

"Perhaps so"????? Your entire premise was wrong. It was Fake News, Disinformation. You didn't check, and you ran with it without even understanding the issues. OP - and every post subsequent before mine - was entirely wrong. Now your popping up with a different issue proclaiming it "should be" only one ballot. Well, it isn't. But that is a separate issue.

Let me help you here...

While Secretary of State Kim Wyman expects a turnout boost due to the earlier primary date, the party declaration requirement will likely deter some voters, she said.

“They hate it,” Wyman said. “Most voters in Washington consider themselves to be independent. They don’t want people in their communities to know their party affiliation.”

When given the option to cast a ballot as “unaffiliated” in past presidential primaries, many Washington voters have taken it. In 1996, about 444,000 of roughly 662,000 voters chose the unaffiliated option, Wyman said. Nearly 40 percent of voters who cast ballots in the 2000 presidential primary did so as unaffiliated.

However...

The primary results will mean more to the state Democratic Party than they have in the past.

The party announced last year that it would use the results of the state’s presidential primary to allocate delegates to candidates instead of divvying up those delegates based on precinct caucuses, as it has done in previous years.

Under the new hybrid system, the primary results will be used to apportion delegates to candidates, and caucuses and conventions will be used to choose the delegates who will represent the state at the national convention, according to the Associated Press.

So not only blatant voter suppression, but a newer and better way for the DNC to funnel their delegates where they want them.

You have no problem with this?

/facepalm

a reply to: ronjer

"To have their ballot counted, voters will have to say they are a member of the political party of the candidate they are backing."

How could anyone know who they actually vote for?

I'm a centrist so would my vote count if I don't join a party?
What if I join the repub party but vote mostly dem? How would they know?

a reply to: ronjer

They do similar things in a lot of States during primary voting. You get a primary ballot for one or the other Party.

Otherwise you get people crossing party lines to prop up opposing candidates they want to run against.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: ronjer

"To have their ballot counted, voters will have to say they are a member of the political party of the candidate they are backing."

How could anyone know who they actually vote for?

I'm a centrist so would my vote count if I don't join a party?
What if I join the repub party but vote mostly dem? How would they know?

~sigh~

Under this particular law, you don't vote if you don't say you belong to a party.

You are given either a Dem or Repub ballot to vote, depending on which party you say you belong to.

So no party affiliation, no ballot to vote with.

You don't get both ballots to vote with.

Did that help?

a reply to: schuyler
I would say your name is associated with the party you voted for, or at least heavily insinuated. Why does it require the party selection to be visible on the outside of the return envelope, with your name and address in full view?

Trying to add pics here, sorry if they have issues





ETA:
if someone can figure out how to embed these, that'd be awesome. Here's the links to the pics:

live.staticflickr.com...

live.staticflickr.com...

a reply to: ronjer

Wait . I'm confused.

Is this law making it so that a dem that wants to vote for a repub potus can't do so?
And a repub can't vote dem?

a reply to: ronjer

It's called a closed primary. 39 states now have closed primaries. It isn't illegal because the parties and states are allowed to conduct their primaries however they see fit. Legally speaking, there's no federal law mandating states even grant a primary ballot to their voters... the state party can legally just declare a candidate their state's choice and never even hold any sort of vote. The states that conduct their primaries via caucus or straw poll actually come damn close to doing that as it is, since the result of those voter choice exercises count less than the states' "super delegate" votes at the convention, at least in the (ironically named) Democratic Party's convention.