Mart Rules have NOT changed in NH
UPDATE: Gambling911 has posted a response to my article. Let me back up to say that I appreciate all the great articles that they have done on Dr Paul. But I just know that their article has given a lot of people the impression that independents won't be able to vote in NH, and that just isn't the case. Yes, they will have to switch temporarily to Republican, then switch back, but that is how it was last election as well. So I think they and I are arguing over semantics. FYI, I would much rather have the primaries completely open, of course. Here's what it says on the Secretary of State's page in NH:
POLITICAL PARTIES
When registering to vote, you will not be required to register as a member of a political party (republican or democratic) -- you may register as an undeclared voter. If you are registered as an undeclared voter and go to vote in a state primary election, you will be required to choose a party when accepting a ballot. Voters should be aware of their party status before a primary election. If you voted on a party ballot in the 2006 state primary, you are now a registered member of that party unless you filled out a card to return to undeclared status with the supervisors of the checklist.
If you are unsure of your party affiliation, you should contact your town or city clerk, as they have the records of party membership. Or, if you are a party member and wish to change your registration status, initiate such a change by taking one of the following steps:
Presidential Primary
1) Meet with the Supervisors of the Checklist no later than the day prior to the filing period for the Presidential Primary (October 12, 2007). This is the last day you can change your party affiliation before the Presidential Primary.
2) If you are a registered member of a party, you may change your registration at any primary, however, you will not be allowed to vote in that primary. Undeclared voters may declare a party and vote at any primary. The law allows an undeclared voter to declare a party at the polls, vote the ballot of that party, and then change their party affiliation back to undeclared simply by completing the form available from the Supervisors of the Checklist at the polling place
----------------------
Our web site and meetup group has been swamped with e-mails from folks around the country concerned with the changes in the voting rules in NH. This is frustrating since the rules HAVE NOT CHANGED in NH. So all these e-mails are just taking away our precious time from what needs to be done. This all got started by an article on gambling911. It makes allegations of voting rules changes across the country that are designed to keep Ron Paul from getting the primary nomination. Now some of the allegations may be true in other states, I'm not familiar with their history. But here in NH the rules have not changed. We were a closed primary before, and are still a closed primary. Here's what the gambling911 article said about NH:
Many states, in an effort to shut out Ron Paul are now closing their primaries. That means that only Republicans can vote in the Presidential primaries for a Republican candidate. Many states are doing this quickly and quietly and giving people very little time to learn about the new rules. For example, New Hampshire decided only a week ago that you will now have to change your party affiliation by October 12, 2007 or it will be too late to do so. New Hampshire also has a closed primary and only Republicans and possibly Independents will be allowed to vote for Ron Paul.
So the first error is that we have changed from an open to a closed primary. We were always a closed primary (must register as a Republican to vote in the primary). It is true that the date got announced only recently, but that is a function of the primary date being moved up due to other states trying to get an early primary. The other major error is that it says "possibly Independents" will not be able to vote for Ron Paul. This is not true - independents can show up the day of the primary and change to Republican and vote (and change back after the vote). The Oct 12 deadline ONLY AFFECTS PEOPLE THAT ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED AS DEMOCRATS. And in NH, since independents can vote in either primary, most folks are independents (around 43%).
Only 26% of registered voters in NH are Democrats. It's possible we could win some of this 26% over (and have already), but we are more likely to get independent and Republican voters than the registered democrats. And we will have up until the day of the primary to do that. By all means, spread the word to your Democrat friends to switch parties to vote for Ron Paul.
19 Comments:
Way to go moron! Chastise one of the most pro-Ron Paul news sites...
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-New-Hampshire-100507.html
Chastise? I was just pointing out that on NH, they are mistaken. I want people to understand what the rules are, and that this is not a disaster, or anything new in NH. Their article is misleading.
OMG, even following your logic if Ron Paul can get a portion of 1% of the 26% of democrats in a field of 5 or 6 Republicans. In an election where there will not be much turn out, in a state where only a few hundred thousand people vote. Wow do you understand the Anti-war Democrat at all??? I was planning on coming to New Hampshire this weekend to help out but it seems even if I get there no one is organizing any efforts in relation to the October 12 deadline, this is sad :(
Just do the math please.
Dear Jim:
I'm glad to know the situation is so rosy. I will proceed to ask for a refund of my donation towards the 'emergency' ad that you asked the grassroots to fund and construct to run in New Hampshire. Apparently, that is no longer needed.
You are an idiot! If you were so worried about your own state you would have gotten the word out instead of relying on Gambling911 to do it.
Instead you whine like a little girl and go after the one reporter who is OUR FREAKIN' FRIEND! Are you out of your ever loving mind?
So, she implied that NH is now closed. It is isn't it? What is the big deal implying it used to be open? Apparently from all the messages you got a lot of other people thought so too! So, her big crime is that she saved some voters for Ron Paul?
What have you done? Possibly lost us the best free publicity we have had in this campaign? Think before you attack certain people! Idiot!
I sure hope she doesn't take too much offense to you.
Poor baby, got a few emails. Did you read the rest of the bloody article? It wasn't all about YOUR state! It included a lot of other information in it too. And with the exception of possibly mischaracterizing the newness of the NH election being closed - ALL OF HER INFORMATION WAS CORRECT AND NOT ONE PERSON HAD SAID IT UP UNTIL THEN!
If you think we can win without dems you are out of your mind. You don't mind losing 26% of the vote! How considerate of you. Who cares how hard people worked to convert dems. Who cares if a ton of supporters in NH the most important state in the union can't vote? Huh? What difference could that possibly mean?
And by the way you jerk, she wrote that only and Republicans AND perhaps Inds COULD vote for Ron Paul, not that Inds could not vote for Ron Paul. So, instead of being on a high horse, why don't you get down on your knees and apologize to the woman!
Attacking Jennifer Reynolds? Think that was wise? Why don't you use your head! That whole site is Pro-Paul. Now, you have the editor attacking you. That looks great to the general public!
Got any more dirty laundry you want to air? Can you think of any other way to make yourself and all Meetup groups look more ridiculous?
It is important not to sh*t all over the people who are ON OUR SIDE!
Now, people not only see you as the weasel, but people who would have helped NH are angry as hell at you! That is a great way to get more things done!
Plus, now folks on forums are saying that you are refusing to hand out any lawn signs and refusing to help NH. True or not, it is being said.
Get yourself out of this. Apologize in the NY Times if you have to! But gee whiz? Could you have stepped in it any deeper?
"If you are a registered member of a party, you may change your registration at any primary, however, you will not be allowed to vote in that primary."
Uh... what part of the above makes you think you have up until the day before the primary to switch a democrat? Do you NOT see the part that says they will not be able to vote in THAT primary if they switch THEN?
I'm sorry, but Jennifer Reynolds is right and you are very very wrong. I don't expect a meetup organizer to know every single rule, but the fact that you posted these words means you HAD to have read it.
I am going to predict right now that many registered democrats are going to be EXTREMELY upset with you when they aren't allowed to vote for Ron Paul because you told them everything was OK.
Let's say it is only 1% of the 26% registered Dems. That is still 1% that could not vote for the candidate of their choice thanks to you.
Great of you to just simply disregard them when it would have taken almost NO energy on your part to have simply notified them.
Are we sure you aren't actually working for a rival campaign?
Hey Jim,
You have your priorities all out of whack because it highlighted a fact few people knew about regarding their ability to vote. In fact, if you go to www.ronpaul2008.com, they are highlighting the same issue on the home page - no doubt because of her article.
I STRONGLY suggest you write a letter of apology to Jennifer Reynolds on behalf of us all, as she has been been articulate, timely and honest in her coverage.
We need more like her, not less! Your leadership is much appreciated, but next time, please think of the larger picture before chastising a journalist who just happens to want to get the message out about Ron Paul.
Thank you.
Children, children.
Rules have not changed in New Hampshire.
1. New Hampshire is and has always been a "closed" primary state.
2. Democrats have always had a deadline to change party affiliation. It's early this year because the primary is early.
3. There is absolutely no question as to whether independents will be allowed to vote. They always have been, and they will this year.
It is frustrating that we will not be able to convert any registered Democrats after October 12th, but the rules have not changed to exclude Ron Paul.
It is important that we convert as many as possible before then, and all efforts are being made to do just that, but it is misleading to get people up in arms believing that the New Hampshire GOP is trying to shut Paul supporters out, when that is simply not the case.
If Gambling911 truly wants to help Paul out, which I believe they do, they will not turn Paul supporters, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, against the NH GOP.
There are some very legitimate concerns that have to be worked out before going all out trying to convert Democrats. For example: what would the impact be on traditional conservatives if they hear the Ron Paul campaign is going after liberals?
This is a tough situation, and it is compounded by a constant barrage of emails coming from misinformed out of state people who, despite their good intentions, are wrong.
Please drop the insults and name calling. We're in this together--we just need to work together on this. People are being mislead by that article. We know because we have emails from them to prove it. No one attacked Gambling911. Jim simply put together a long, well written response re-educating the misinformed.
Jim, I hope to god that you didn't reply to the inquiries from Democrats generated due to Jennifer Reynold's article by saying something like they can change parties at the primaries and vote, or not replying to them at all.
Your decision makes absolutely no sense, and I will suggest others to investigate the actions you have taken during this time as this one has proven detrimental.
Jim,
It is news that the NH primaries are going to be closed after Oct 12. Did you tell your meetup to spread the word about this? To the contrary, you act like it's not even important.
Further, nothing in the following statement is inaccurate:
"For example, New Hampshire decided only a week ago that you will now have to change your party affiliation by October 12, 2007 or it will be too late to do so. New Hampshire also has a closed primary and only Republicans and possibly Independents will be allowed to vote for Ron Paul."
In short, though you should make matters clearer, you handled the whole thing in the most idiotic way.
THIS HAS TO STOP PEOPLE!!! All of this in-fighting between Ron Paul supporters is causing nothing but harm to the campaign and taking focus away from the task at hand. This is exactly what all of the other GOP candidates want!!! Do you really want to give them the satisfaction? Time is VERY short, and all of our energies need to be focused on spreading Ron Paul's name and message of freedom. We will NEVER EVER have an opportunity like this again! A man like Ron Paul does not come along every election year. NO ONE has ever overcome the obstacles that he has, and it's unlikely that anyone ever will again. Do we really want to use what little time we have to take jabs at each other???
I am a volunteer in NH and after the first Gambling911 article came out, I can assure you there was some confusion about the rules in NH. Jim was simply trying to clarify the situation, he was not attacking or chastising anyone. He was using this forum to INFORM people - NOTHING MORE!!!
Jim has done a TREMENDOUS amount of work for the Ron Paul campaign, more than any of you will ever know or be able to appreciate. If you truly care about Ron Paul's campaign, please drop it and stop the attacks. This is a case of a simple misunderstanding, and somehow it has been blown out of proportion.
Obviously this deadline for Democrats to switch over is going to hurt Ron Paul's campaign more than any of the other GOP candidates. There are many rules in politics that exist to try and keep honest people like Dr. Paul out of the process. That is an unfortunate fact that we have to deal with. THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO CHANGE THAT!!! We have to move forward and focus on getting as many Republicans and Independents as we can.
I know this rule sucks. It's not fair. In a perfect world, they'd all be open primaries. Hell, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be a party system. The best way to actually change things is get out there and do everything you can do to help get Ron Paul elected.
Amazing all the anon comments about Jim.
Jim busts his ass everyday for Ron Paul and was clarifying the rules.
The rules have not changed in NH.. the date has been set that is all.
People attacking over this is unreal. We have spread the word in NH... and we started doing that on the 29th when the Sec of State set the date of Oct 12th.
Today during our lit drop we mentioned the date of Oct 12th to all the Democrats that we met.
We are also planning an ad in the newspaper to inform Democrats.
I just reread the article on g911.com
quote:
And just exactly how many of these 43% of Independents do you really believe are willing to "change to Republican and vote and change back after the vote"?
end quote
This is the way it is in NH.
Undeclareds (like me) go in and they ask you if you want a D ballot or a R ballot. This is very normal and how things are done in NH. Then if you want you can switch back to Undeclared. If you don't switch back then you are considered a D or an R.
My name is Jack Hansen. I don't know how to get an account to make that name come up, so I am saying this so you know I am not posting anonymously.
What Jim did was to attack a reporter who is a Ron Paul supporter. That kind of behavior is exactly what the competition is looking for: infighting. Why give them fodder?
I won't bother to reiterate the point that Jim was wrong and Ms. Reynolds was correct in all she said. I saw her response article and it was all class. You could learn a lot from her. But, even if she had been wrong, why on earth would you want to give our enemies something to pick up on?
If someone writes a positive article about Ron Paul and you point out flaws, then all the good of that article goes out the window. Why would you do that to the campaign. And you didn't just point out an error, you outright attacked her! You accused her basically of lying! Don't you think that people read that crap you wrote, people who are NOT Ron Paul supporters?
So what were you trying to do? Discredit her? Why would you do that? As she wrote today, if people were writing to you, then obviously there is some confusion. You don't even know there is no such thing as registering as an Independent. So clearly you don't jack about the voting rules in NH which points out the desperate need for her article!
I say, Bravo to this wonderful lady who took your crap like a man while you were throwing a temper tantrum like a little girl!
I don't give a damn if a Ron Paul reporter/writer who is on our side makes 1000 mistakes in their story, it is insane of anyone on our team to point it out.
Just to make it perfectly clear here, I don't think she made any mistakes in her article other than thinking that there was an Independent category in NH.
She brought up a very important point about voting, how difficult the rules are, and how a VERY IMPORTANT DEADLINE was coming up. Did you do that? I don't see where you plastered that information all over the place? Why the hell not?
She did your job because you didn't. Get over it. And apologize to the lady!
Jim, you wrote: The other major error is that it says "possibly Independents" will not be able to vote for Ron Paul.
Major error huh? Try the error on for size my friend because that is NOT what it said in the article. It said, and I quote: "New Hampshire also has a closed primary and only Republicans and possibly Independents will be allowed to vote for Ron Paul."
Do you see the big difference between the two? You accused her of a major error because you seemingly cannot READ.
You got some balls mister. She apologizes to her readers if she got anything wrong at all, no matter how tiny and you who accused her of making a MAJOR mistake she didn't make at all stay silent.
Wow I didn't know that Gambling911 was such a news source for everyone.
Also people attacking Jim? I mean is that what Ron would do? You can point out if you think he is wrong but attacking him.... not the greatest tactic.
As a resident of NH...Jim is right. The rules have not changed. Just a date was set.
I am Independent (or Undeclared) and I voted in the Democrat primary last time and then left the booth and became undeclared 3 minutes later. For those 3 minutes I was a Democrat. (hence it is a closed primary)
I went and read the original article:
"Many states, in an effort to shut out Ron Paul are now closing their primaries,"
NH did not do this to shut RP out of the primary... and I think that is what Jim was saying in this response. There is no GOP conspiracy.
I will admit that she then goes on to say this:
The Ron Paul campaign now has less than two weeks to teach people about his candidacy and his policies.
Two weeks to teach Democrats...
and she says this:
As of this moment, in New Hampshire you may be registered as an Independent and still vote for Ron Paul.
Which is 100% correct. NH calls them undeclareds.
further:
However, for those of you in New Hampshire reading this, I wouldn't trust that come election day the rules won't have been changed on you again. To be safe, make sure your voter registration card says Republican.
It is true that NH might change the rules but I doubt it. NH has a LARGE undeclared base (44%)... and always has. There would be a huge uproar if NH changed it rules but true it is possible.
Also I don't think that it is the article that is wrong so much as it is how people misread it to think that there is a huge GOP scheme to not have Ron Paul win. (maybe that is true in NY and other states)... but not in NH.
To all,
Thanks for all the comments. I certainly didn't mean to "attack" Jennifer, and said in my update how much I appreciate the work she has done. But there was confusion based on her article, and I was just trying to clear it up. Many of the things I said in my article were not meant to be directed at her (e.g. saying "mountain out of a molehill") but were intended to be directed at the people e-mailing me with the impression that Ron Paul doesn't have a shot any more because of a rules change. It's just not the case.
I have tried to call Jennifer (had to leave a message) to clear up the confusion between us, and to apologize for the way my post was received. Her latest article helps clear up the misunderstanding between the two of us. The good news is:
1) Everyone seems to understand the rules now
2) We are working hard to inform Democrats of those rules
3) We got lots of donations for print adds that will go out prior to the 12th (this was in the works before this exchange took place)
I'm going to edit the article to make it more clear I am not attacking gambling911. I do want to highlight what Joseph has said - We don't want to make enemies with the NH GOP. So far they have been very open and accepting of Dr Paul and his supporters, contrasting with other states. There are some notable exceptions, but I have personally talked to the State Party Chair, and my County Chair, and the relationship is good. Let's keep it that way.
Post a Comment
<< Home