AP: 'Mail-in primary likely in Florida'

I was under the impression (0.00 / 0)

That DNC rules required physical sites.  I agree with you that there should be actual voting locations, even if it's just to contest the fact that your neighbor (the guy with the big Ron Paul sign still in his front 40), stole your ballot out of your mailbox.

---

by: Brady @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:36:46 AM UTC

Can somebody provide a cite for a DNC rule requiring voting at sites? (4.00 / 1)

I've never come across one, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in there somewhere.  

My proposal would allow voting at sites, but it would be a minor part of the whole scheme.  One major purpose would be to allow access to problem-solving for people whose voter registration status is tangled somehow.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:52:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't (0.00 / 0)

I'm just going off something that has been repeated here several times, admittedly not the best thing to do.

---

by: Brady @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The only thing I found about sites is within the internet voting rule. (0.00 / 0)

Internet Voting
The 2008 Rules contain a new provision allowing Internet voting under certain conditions. Internet voting can only apply to State Party-run primaries and must be accompanied by in-person voting locations and vote by mail. Additionally, Internet voting must include a comprehensive outreach and education program to reach those who lack access as well as certain security and technical safeguards.

http://216.109.125.130/search/...

---

by: Cole6015 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:50:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So the question is whether Internet voting can be permitted. (0.00 / 0)

It sounds like vote-by-mail is fine.  If the MDP permits Internet voting, they have to meet the new standards, which I'm sure can't be TOO high.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:00:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know (0.00 / 0)

I don't think internet voting is viable.

Internet Voting:
The 2008 Rules contain a new provision allowing Internet voting under certain conditions. Internet voting can only apply to State Party-run primaries and must be accompanied by in-person voting locations and vote by mail. Additionally, Internet voting must include a comprehensive outreach and education program to reach those who lack access as well as certain security and technical safeguards.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:12:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Internet voting could certainly not be the only option. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: memiller @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:58:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That comprehensive outreach could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. (0.00 / 0)

I don't know the going rate for producing a TV commercial but it must be very expensive.  Buying air-time all over the state would be equally expensive.

Radio ads all over the state have to be produced and the air-time bought.

Newspaper ads in hundreds of publications would be another great expense.

The security the DNC would require, and that the MDP would want, won't be cheap.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and lots of it!

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Don't know why Levin would even mention the cost of a primary (2.00 / 3)

To a guy who supports the trillion dollar Iraq war a $10 million for a primary is pocket change.

---

by: left of liberal @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 15:25:37 PM UTC

It certainly makes sense (0.00 / 0)

and I hope Brewer listens to Mr. Grebner on this issue. It is a data base that we can grow out and provide a permanent source of information that we don't have to duplicate each and every election cycle...

Gak!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 16:16:15 PM UTC

Who are you? (4.00 / 3)

Nazgul agreeing with Grebner?  What have you done with the real Nazgul?!?!?

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:59:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with him on many things (4.00 / 1)

I just take umbridge with his attempts to paint himself a political scientist...

Not because he isn't an academic, but because he doesn't have the training...

He's a hobbyist, which is fine. His knowledge of Michigan politics is exceptional, but that would make him a political historian...not a scientist.

Ironically, one of the aspects of being a scientists is anonymous peer review...in other words, people you don't know subjecting your science to a rigorous evaluation.

On the issues of GOTV and his plan for the mail in primary, he is absolutely correct (in my opinion).

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:15:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, who would get ballots if we did this in Michigan? (0.00 / 0)

Only those people who voted on a Democratic ballot on January 15?

If so, what does that do for those who crossed over and voted for, say, Ron Paul to mess with the Republican primary or for those who stayed home because they thought their vote wasn't going to count?

I had no idea state law says we can't have a redo.  This statement from Carl is the first time I've heard that.

In all the talk about this I've heard on TV, no one talks about the fact that if we had a caucus, it would be totally different from what people think of as a typical caucus.  Our original plan allowed Internet voting, no-reason absentee voting and same-day voting on secret ballot at caucus sites.  It certainly was more inclusive than a typical caucus like those in other states. The party had money to pay for it if we did it per the original plan on Feburary 9.  What's happened to that money?

---

by: SharonRB @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 19:09:25 PM UTC

The party has a list (0.00 / 0)

of Democrats.

Plus, Grebner puts the number for his ballot at 1.5 million if I am not mistaken...that is more than three times the number who initially participated.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:18:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would mail 1.5 million "invitations" to known Dems. (4.00 / 1)

Anybody receiving one would just need to check a box that says something like "I intend to support the Democratic candidate for President this November", sign, and drop it in the mail.

Ballots would also be sent to anyone who applies using forms obtained on the Web or elsewhere.

The "invitations" would be mailed to the voters' QVF addresses using First Class mail, and would have the voter's identity pre-printed, so I wouldn't worry about significant fraud involving them.  Forms obtained from other sources might pose more risk, so they'd be scrutinized more carefully.

No matter how a do-over is run, I would be surprised if more than 1 million votes are cast.  Handling it by mail would allow accommodation of a larger number, but I wouldn't expect it.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:51:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the explanation (4.00 / 1)

That makes sense.  I was hoping people who stayed home in January and those who fiddled with the Republican primary would still be able to vote.

---

by: SharonRB @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:08:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who could voted? It's up to the MDP. (4.00 / 1)

They have a very wide range of options, limited only by the feasibility of implementation.

State law doesn't say they CAN'T have a do-over.  It just doesn't provide for one, and getting a bill through the State Senate - with a 2/3 majority so it can go into effect immediately - won't work.

I think the only feasible method would be predominantly mail-in, with only limited site-based voting.  It's possible to handle one million ballots that are received in the mail.  It's not possible to handle one million ballots received at voting sites, without spending an immense amount of money.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:40:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do we keep the Republicans from messing with (0.00 / 0)

it?   Primaries/cauci (?) need to be closed.  When they cross over in Iowa and NH, they're called "new Democrats".  What a crock.

---

by: dkmich @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 21:15:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republican voters (0.00 / 0)

Having discussed this issue with a number of Republicans in my workplace, I believe the great majority of them will vote in the Democratic caucus if they are able to.  While their motivations are different that ours, they have a great deal of interest in who our nominee is, especially since their nominee is already decided.

If there are no restrictions on who can vote, it's not unreasonable to believe that at least a third of the vote will come from Republicans.  The ones who'll vote will have no problem checking off some box on the Democratic caucus form saying they intend to vote Democratic in November because they know there's no way to hold them to their word.  A better option might be to enclose photos of Granholm and Engler with the ballot and ask them to mail back the photo of the governor who's done the best job for Michigan.  The MDP can throw out the ballots that come back with Engler.

It's unfortunate that given how close our race is and because our convention is first, the Republicans can both help pick our nominee and then tailor McCain's VP choice around who our nominee is and who our VP nominee is.  Fortunately, the Republicans are just as divided as we are as to who to give their mischief vote to.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:14:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And then (0.00 / 0)

at the District caucuses, when it is time to select the delegates...will the Republicans be there?

No.

So the selection of delegates will proceed by whomever gets their people to show...something that the Hillary people appear to already be doing...

And it is completely within the rules.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:19:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think your estimate of cross-over voting is much too high. (4.00 / 2)

Maybe we need to define "cross-over", first.

In the January 15 election, roughly 10% of all ballots cast in the Democratic primary came from people I'm sure are Republicans.  Why would they leave their primary (where McCain was fighting it out with Romney and votes actually counted) for ours (where we had no campaigning and nothing was at stake)?  Clearly, they weren't screwing around - they were throwing away their vote, if anything.  Their motivation, I'm pretty sure, was they had given up on their own party and were trying to defect.  January 15 in Michigan was a singularly bad  time to do so, of course.

We see the same trend everywhere - the Democratic turnout is huge and the Republican is tiny, even when both parties were offering comparably attractive contests.  There are lots and lots of despairing former Republicans.  I don't count these people as "cross-overs" but "defectors".

The real problem comes from people who are insincere in their participation - like the Republicans who voted for Geoff Fieger in 1998, or like me in reverse.  (I admit it - I voted for Romney on 1/15.)

In the first place, it would be hard for the Republicans to make up 1/3 of the total vote - there just aren't that many of them, and they're not feeling that sassy.

In the second place, my scheme begins with mailing individualized "invitations" to 1.5 million Democratic names, which would make up 90% of the final voters.  People who weren't on that initial list would have to apply one-at-a-time using downloadable or photocopied forms, and because the first wave would have covered such a large fraction of true Democrats, there wouldn't be much interest in circulating the non-pre-printed version.

Finally, I think you're wrong about the deterrent effect of requiring somebody to sign a statement like "I intend to vote for the Democratic nominee for President in November 2008".  Remember that these ballots would NOT be public record, but would become the property of the Democratic Party, which would be free to store them away and produce them five or twenty-five years from now, at a time the would-be crossover voter might be running for office, applying for an appointment to office, or whatever.  Even if the risk is small, it's the sort of risk that nags at people, and strengthens whatever conscience they possess.

Put all that together, and not counting the sincere defectors, and I bet no more than 5% - or maybe 50,000 - of the votes cast in a Democratic mail-in caucus would be Republicans who are intentionally screwing around.

Of course, my discussion hinges on the absurd idea the plan that will soon be announced will be openly based on what I've proposed.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 18:05:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm convinced (0.00 / 0)

If we're using the PPC lists that we use for VAN/Casework and we require somewhat cumbersome steps to get a ballot if you're not already a D and we have a written and signed pledgedes, I think this would deter enough Republicans.  The PPC lists are the most scientific and best produced of any that I've seen.  I'm not sure the MDP has the resources to manage something like this though.  It would have to be hired out.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 20:40:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When you add in the fact (0.00 / 0)

that many low information voters believe that when they vote in one party's primary, they aren't allowed to vote for the other party's candidate in the general...that may be enough of a deterrent alone.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 20:54:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It worked in 2004. (0.00 / 0)

Anyone requesting a ballot was sent one with a unique control number imprinted on the ballot.  

The control number allowed them to be identified when they voted on the internet.  

The same ballot could be completed manually and sent to the MDP.  

The Saturday of the caucus voting sites were open 10-4.

140,000 voted by mail.
37,000 voted via the internet.
50,000 voted at the voting sites.

So, the vote-by-mail is nothing new, it's like absentee voting with no questions asked.

As far as Republican participation, I don't see how that can be controlled; we do not declare our party affiliation in Michigan.

Just in case the MDP does use their list of known Democrats, we should all make sure we are on the list.

---

by: Cole6015 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:08:09 AM UTC

I still don't think your numbers are correct. (0.00 / 0)

My memory is that about 165,000 ballots were actually counted by the MDP in 2004, plus quite a few more that were rejected for various reasons.

The NY Times reported that 100,000 votes were cast by voters walking in to sites.  Brewer has recently said that 25% of the total vote was by mail (Sunday, 3/9/08 DetNews).  I think your number of 37,000 votes cast by Internet is about right.  

That leaves something like 30,000 or 40,000 cast by mail, which accords with my memory.

I'm only posting this because I'm afraid if nobody disagrees with your figures they'll become "true" in the sense that people will begin citing them.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:11:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The results in Grand Traverse were 1,250 mail, 450 site, 300 internet. (0.00 / 0)

Doesn't that appear to be roughly a similar break down?

---

by: Cole6015 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:33:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We need info from the MDP (0.00 / 0)

The results in East Lansing were more heavily weighted toward site-based voting - over 1000 ballots cast on the day of the caucus.  Maybe voting in rural areas was skewed toward mail?

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:04:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More bogus numbers from the Detroit News (4.00 / 1)

I think gathering additional estimates of the composition of the 2004 caucus voters doesn't improve the accuracy; it just adds more flavors of error to the average.

Still, from the Detroit News, 3/11/08 "Dem panel to pitch mail-in vote":

In their 2004 caucus, Michigan Democrats permitted voting via mail, the Internet, and in person.  About 40 percent participated online, 35 percent in person at caucus meeting spots and 25 percent by mail.  But Kerr noted only 165,000 Democrats took part.

If that were true - which I don't believe - there were 66,000 Internet votes, 58,000 walk-in, and 41,000 mail-in ballots.

I'm pretty sure there were only 38,000 Internet votes, because I helped count them.  

My original proposal was to encourage mail-in votes, and discourage walk-ins.  Under present circumstances, that's even more important, in order to deal with the vastly larger potential turnout.

It will be very interesting to read the details of the plan promised later this week by Sen. Levin, Debbie Dingell, Congresswoman Kilpatrick and Ron Gettelfinger.  Very interesting.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:11:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sure it will involve mail and internet. Sites? No, I don't think so. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:22:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think it will fly (0.00 / 0)

The more I hear about this idea, and, the more I hear from FL politicians, the less I think it's feasible.

For a state like FL, the security issue would be mind-boggling.

"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 20:55:47 PM UTC