Yes, there's a new BlogAd over on the right.
Yes, it's for Barack Obama's Presidential campaign.
Yes, I'm happy to accept his advertising.
In fact, I'd urge his campaign to spend more money advertising on blogs generally and IP.com specifically, as IP.com readers are the smartest, most politically savvy and best-looking people in all of America. (That, and a generous share of our readers do vote in Democratic Primaries.)
looks like he's worried about carrying Illinois. :)
Barack's website to be rolling in online donations, following the example of the Dean'iacs.
...I have the audacity to hope that Champaign County Republicans will be enthused enough about their own field of candidates that they will vote in their own primary this time. The Illinois primary is the nominating election of the political parties, in case anyone has read the Illinois election statute lately.
"...I have the audacity to hope that Champaign County Republicans will be enthused enough about their own field of candidates that they will vote in their own primary this time. The Illinois primary is the nominating election of the political parties, in case anyone has read the Illinois election statute lately."
Gerri,
Sen. Frerichs has introduced a number of election reform bills this Session, some of which are decent ideas. Why don't you lobby him to introduce a bill moving Illinois to a closed-Primary system?
Until then, Illinois election law says that a voter chooses their Party in a number of different ways, but most commonly by choosing in which Primary to vote. Which means that, according to statute, people who vote in Democratic Primaries are all registered Democrats, at least at that moment, and at least until they do something to change that.
Hi IP (Gordy?)--no one is following this thread, but I did want to respond to you. That thought has crossed my mind. Voters in Illinois do not "register" as affiliates of a particular political party, yet when they sign petitions to put candidates on the primary election ballot, their signature affirms that they are affiliated with that party. And when voters request a primary election ballot, they have to request it by party, and the small slip of paper they sign to get the ballot also has that affirmation, that they are "affiliated" with the party. If a voter is challenged by a pollwatcher, and the challenge is upheld by the election judges, the voter would have to sign an affidavit that states:
I, ...., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am a citizen of the United States, of the age of 18 years or over, and am qualified to vote under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois, and am a legally qualified voter of the precinct; that I now reside at ....(insert street and number, if any) in this precinct, and am a member of and affiliated with the .... party;
This language, I AM A MEMBER OF AND AFFILIATED WITH THE ....PARTY, makes it very clear that voters are declaring party affiliation with their ballot, and the words, "I AM A MEMER OF" suggest a longer affiliation than five minutes. The fact that one political party could organize a massive crossover in order to determine who will be nominated by another party's election is fundamentally wrong. Primary elections are partisan elections--they are governed by the statute titled THE MAKING OF NOMINATIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES.
I think we should require "party registration" 6 months prior to primaries. A more common complaint, however, is that people don't want to "declare" for any party (yet still vote in primaries). Big deal in Spfld - I think they had a non-binding referendum question asking about it.
"The fact that one political party could organize a massive crossover in order to determine who will be nominated by another party's election is fundamentally wrong."
Gerri,
If you're referring to the 2006 Dem Primary in District 9, there was no "massive crossover" organized by the GOP - if there had been, I would know about it. There were definitely a significant number of crossovers, but they were organized by Wysocki and Beckett mostly, with some help by the County Farm Bureau - a astonishing strategic blunder for which I know many Republicans, including myself, are still angry at the FB.
That said, your opponents took advantage of the laws as written, and as written, they allow someone to declare themselves a member of Party just long enough to vote in a Primary. The voters who "crossed over" did nothing illegal or improper. In fact, given the vote totals in District 9, I suspect that a great many of them ended up supporting both Beckett and Wysocki in November as well.
I am to be in favor of open primaries, as I think participation by average citizens is easiest under those rules.
But, again, if you want to advocate for closed Primaries, my recommendation is to call Sen. Frerichs, as he's already sponsoring a number of election reform bills.
(And yes, I'm Gordy - I just use this screen name on here out of sentimental attachment.)