digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cleveland.com

Ohio may file charges against primary crossover voters

cleveland.com — The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary. Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MarkusGarvey, on 03/21/2008, -75/+43why go after the pawns...Rush and his gang should be convicted for tampering with an election...this is where it all came from...and more than likely Rove had something to do with it....
    • exgop, on 03/21/2008, -25/+77Ecuse me? Are you facist? Democrats and libs crossover all the time to screw with Republican elections.
      • pyroben92, on 03/21/2008, -25/+13BTW Keeping Obama out of office is for the "good of the nation".
    • biotch, on 03/21/2008, -15/+7Fascist would actually imply switching parties to vote with malicious intent. Doing that is illegal. Just honestly switching is not illegal. I think Dems and Repubs should be investigated if there is sufficient evidence to support claims like these.
      • malman4, on 03/21/2008, -1/+14How can anyone know why I registered to vote for the person I want to win. Can they prove my thoughts were illegal..
        • AxeSwinger, on 03/21/2008, -8/+5They can if you registered as a democratic member on the day of the primary and switched back to the republican party within the next 30 days or donated to any republican political organization since changing to the democratic party.
          • rebrad, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8So the corporations and some people that give to both parties are committing a crime? Really, I'm happy that the constitution protects me from people like you. I can vote for anyone I want in any election and I don't have to tell anyone who I voted for or why.
          • tech42er, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3***** THAT! They don't have any goddamn business trying to convict me of a thought crime. Are you trying to tell me it is now illegal to join a private organization and then leave the next day? So if I go to a company and sign a contract that says I will work for them for life, that's ***** binding now?
          • AxeSwinger, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3It's not a thought crime and as long as you are not signing a statement of fidelity there is no issue. You don't have to affirm loyalty when joining a political party; only when you do it at your voting location the day of the election. For most changing parties is not something that is done lightly sure you can have remorse and switch back and there should be no repurcussions. For those who do no punishment should be given but if you have someone active in a party switch to another for a day or two then yes their actions are suspect. You can't compare the NRA, Toastmasters, or the Lions like you would a political party. They're different beasts; Toastmasters don't make laws and elective party officials do political parties are not a private organization. The people who change their parties on the day of election are supposed to sign the pledge to the party. It makes sense since the PRIMARY not the general election is when parties decide who their candidate will be for the election. If outsiders want to muck that up there should be repercussions, regardless of whose parties primary it is.

            As for corporations or individuals giving to both parties that sure is a sign of trying to gain political clout while I find unsavory should not be illegal. But, that's not within the scope of this discussion we're talking about people who felt strongly enough, with the exception of the individual that was willing to affirm for the day, to change there party affiliation and a sign their name to a loyalty pledge.

            I'll stand by my statement you can know peoples intentions by the actions they make. It's a cornerstone of the judicial system, the difference between manslaughter and murder. It's not a new concept.

            In the end you either get that it's wrong for any person to commit this type of fraud regardless of which party is harmed or you've drunk the cool-aid and are more concerned with party loyalty then free elections.
        • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4If you were stupid enough to go and write that on a blog, or in an email, or wrote "only for a day" like some retarded voters did - yeah, it's pretty easy to prove you intended to commit election fraud.
    • pintomp3, on 03/21/2008, -12/+7it's scummy and further contributes to the crappiness of our electoral process, but i don't think it's illegal.
      • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -4/+8Yes, it is illegal. It's been ruled many times by the supreme court that speech which main intent is to encourage people to break the law is not protected by the first amendment. This is no different than if Rush or anyone else on the radio actively encourage their audience to rob, loot, murder, etc. Rush most obviously was encouraging his audience to break the law, and the statistics (as well as some physical evidence) shows his audience most definitely acted on that.
        • tech42er, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4The dispute isn't whether its illegal to exhort someone to commit a crime; it's whether or not joining an organization and then quitting is illegal if you tell them you'll be loyal to them for life. It's analogous to if I convert to Islam and then drop it? Should that be illegal? After all, I pledged my life to the religion, and now I'm reneging. Can I go to ***** jail for that? It's not like the politics parties are organs of government; they're nothing more than private organization,s no different from any other private group, such as a religion!
          • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2This isn't about joining an organization and then quitting it. This is about the integrity of the election process, or acting in bad faith. And yes, you can be definitely held liable for damages if you join an organization then vote or make some decision for that organization in bad faith.

            Example - home owners organization. Let's say someone can prove that you cast a vote in a homeowners' organization as either a home owner or board member, and that vote was in bad faith (like you were trying to scam money out of them or for a retribution or something like that) you can be held liable for that action. Now you can join or quit the organization by buying or selling a home at leisure and nothing can come about it. But if you vote in bad faith, you can be held liable. Voting in a democratic primary with intent to screw the party is most definitely acting in bad faith.

            The problem with all of this is usually proving it. But if someone goes on the record somewhere and says I bought property in this association so I could get on the board and send all the contracts to my company, or I joined the democratic party for the intent purposes of causing damage like voting in a primary specifically to create chaos, then they are breaking several laws and can be prosecuted and sued easily.
    • kingUssop, on 03/21/2008, -12/+17I don't know why this is dugg down... Rush should get in trouble for telling his zombies to do this. That's definitely where the idea came from.
      • rebrad, on 03/21/2008, -6/+4Why should Rush be singled out? If that's true why don't we jail anyone that endorses any candidate? That would be a sure way of promoting democracy. Remember there are two sides to every viewpoint and what can be done to one group can be done to the other. In your world both conservative spokesman and socialist spokesman are guilty of directing their "zombies". Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you or what you believe is true are the only ones that can express their thoughts.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2"Why should Rush be singled out?"

          Because he encouraged people to break the law.


          "If that's true why don't we jail anyone that endorses any candidate?"

          Endorsing a candidate isn't endorsing breaking the law.

          "In your world both conservative spokesman and socialist spokesman are guilty of directing their "zombies"."

          You obviously don't know anything about "his world"...
          • rebrad, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2What law was broken? I love to see it proven in court if charges could even be made. You're right, I seem to know little of "his world". I don't live in moms basement. What I don't get here is that people are looking for a reason Obama didn't win Ohio. Well I live in Ohio and I can tell you that the Democrats are in Ohio are some of the most racist people I've ever met. I'm a Republican and I voted for Obama and will vote for him if nominated. It's amazing how much these union workers and unemployed union workers hate anyone that doesn't look like them. Amazing and sad.
        • MarkusGarvey, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1hmmmm..........let's see....tampering with a federal election.....conspiracy to commit vote fraud...need proof?...d/l the podcast.....
          • rebrad, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Primaries are not federal elections. Need proof, ask the Hillary supporters that are trying to find money for a redo in Mich and Fla. I don't need to listen to a podcast to know that there is no law against what Rush did except that a lot of people wish there was. Of course they have no problem doing the same to the other party. People vote for who they want to. Even if these were federal elections no money nor things of value were exchanged so no crime was committed. When it becomes a crime to tell someone to vote for a candidate we are all in trouble. BTW, I did d/l an excerpt of Rush on what he called operation anarchy or something like that and what I got was Rush was having a field day making fun of the people that took this seriously and took pleasure at their squirming. Their pain was his gain. Sad, truly sad.
  • WaltDismal, on 03/21/2008, -49/+33Rove left the White House mainly to have less visibility in rigging the coming elections. No question that he not only knew of but drove Limbaugh's soliciting crossovers against the Dems. He fights dirty, he will continue to fight dirty. I wonder whether Cheney, in his answer of "So?" to an interviewer's remark that 2/3 of Americans were against the war, already knew what's going to happen to the elections.
    • exgop, on 03/21/2008, -15/+29quit drinking the kool aid and take a breath
    • KJeffV, on 03/21/2008, -8/+18*yawn*

      I recommend we get completely wrapped around the axle concerning the SYMPTOMS of this issue.
    • delmar14, on 03/21/2008, -12/+6You sir, are a bat-***** insane tin-foil hat wearing lunatic.
    • PolishLogic, on 03/21/2008, -7/+7I'm sure you'll be happy to post your proof on Rove rigging these elections, right?
  • exgop, on 03/21/2008, -104/+72The real face of Democrats are begining to show..... They are facist.
    • Kizilbash, on 03/21/2008, -23/+25Facists eh? Is that someone who judges people by their faces?
      • masterm1nd, on 03/21/2008, -3/+16I'm afraid it's much worse than you thought.
      • Jlaugh, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2Um Democrats and Republicans are flip sides of the same coin and that coin has the Fasces lictoriae on the back of it. Further proof would be to look at the Speaker of the House podium which has Fasces lictoriae on either side of it. FDR was a fascist and so was Lincoln and every other American politician from the beginning of the country.
        • Kerrigore, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4What the hell are you smoking, and where can I get some?
      • davidrools, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5He was pointing out exgop's misspelling.
      • Brad324, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3people who don't get jokes should have their bury buttons disabled.
    • AdonisEffect, on 03/21/2008, -6/+50I wonder if a person that can't spell fascist has the right to assign political bias to others.
      • LLLSecretChimp, on 03/21/2008, -6/+1Yes, their well within they're rights to do so.
    • Chassit, on 03/21/2008, -7/+36fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]

      A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.

      I hope you feel stupid.
      • HotBaconSauce, on 03/21/2008, -12/+3Tyranny of the majority?
      • Emnsta, on 03/21/2008, -9/+1Hag
      • synarchy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2"In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism."

        Stalin=Fail.

        Argue all you want about right or left, I don't give s *****. Socialists, Communists, Statists, Corporatists, Warmongers, Fearmongers, Warmingmongers --- they are all anti-Liberty and totalitarians. They can all rot in hell.
        • Kerrigore, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1As opposed to objectivists and libertarians which are just fine and dandy, sunshine and candy?
          • synarchy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise, take your alliteration to the poetry section.
          • Kerrigore, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1That wasn't alliteration. Just saying. My point was, absolute freedom just leads to a Hobbesian state of nature.
    • Jlaugh, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Fascism is much older than that it's the economic system of Imperial Rome.
      • Kerrigore, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Rome was a Republic.
        • Frosty122, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2It was a monarchy, then a republic, then an empire. Not just a republic.
          • Jlaugh, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1A Republic can be Fascist, a Democracy can be Fascist, a Monarchy can be Fascist. Fascism is an organization model not just a twentieth century political ideology. Just like capitalism is an economic system and has nothing to do with how our leaders are chosen.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Don't post when you're drunk...
      • Kerrigore, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I'm not as think as you drunk I am, occifer.
  • Berkana, on 03/21/2008, -20/+42The time to clean house is long overdue.
    • trackerbishop, on 03/21/2008, -12/+16what about the dems who crossed over to vote for RON PAUL? i dont want them punished for actually using their BRAINS
      • InfiniteNothing, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1It's a primary. I'm not sure that's legit unless you're unaffiliated.
      • turpenine, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6dems who crossed to vote for paul is not the same thing, they where voting for a candidate legitimately and not maliciously.
        • PopcornDave, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6The thing is that by what you're calling a malicious cross over voting, you're not voting for the candidate you want to win on your side and you're taking the chance that your candidate is going to fail without your vote.
          As far as I can see, it's your vote to do with what you want, so what's the problem?
          • qwerter, on 03/21/2008, -6/+2Well, in addition to being immoral, it happens to be illegal in many places.
          • trackerbishop, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3thanks for defining my morals
          • qwerter, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4If the immorality of scamming an election is that hard to figure out, then I worry for this country.
    • dsmyre, on 03/21/2008, -4/+16They wrote comments on their affidavits like "Only for one day!". How dumb. They deserve to be charged.
      • PopcornDave, on 03/21/2008, -6/+5Charged for being truthful?
        • qwerter, on 03/21/2008, -5/+10Charged for lying when they signed the affidavit regarding their affiliation.

          "Lying on the signed statement is a fifth-degree felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine."
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6Charged for committing a crime...
      • swiftheart, on 03/21/2008, -4/+6It's more than that. Done properly, the pollworker has the voter raise their right hand and take an oath of allegiance to the new party. To lie here is perjury. It's not the sorta thing you say and then follow with "NOT!"
      • usbcd36, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5I was a poll worker in the Cuyahoga County primary, and I heard several people ask that question to Judge 2 in my precinct (I was Judge 1). I also dealt with several people who were less than willing to reveal which party they were affiliated with, yet didn't just want to vote on the issues.
    • scottc, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5Even if it was illegal, and even if there is some way to prove that some voters committed this "crime", this is a ridiculous thing to pursue. Ohio has many, many voting problems and crossover votes are the least of them. Plus, the process was unclear and it was left up to poll workers to decide if and how to implement the policy of having crossover voters sign the party affiliation form. They allowed some voters to vote a Democratic ballot without asking them to sign the pledge and they asked others to sign the pledge.

      I switched parties to vote for Obama. I thought I only needed to ask for a Democratic ballot, not sign my allegiance, but the poll worker told me I had to sign in order to vote. So I did. This election is too important to worry about who belongs to what party, so I'm a Democrat now.
      • swiftheart, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2"it was left up to poll workers to decide if and how to implement the policy"

        That is intentional. It's entirely the pollworker's call. The idea is that the pollworker may feel that you have bad intentions for doing this, and "challenges" (that's the legal word) your intent. You satisfy the challenge by taking an oath.
        • scottc, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2I understand the rules, but why would you give that kind of power to a pollworker? That's just asking for abuse. For example, it would be easy for a Clinton supporter to challenge every young voter or minority voter, and for an Obama supporter to challenge every white woman. Just asking people to sign the form stopped some from voting.
  • cashman57, on 03/21/2008, -34/+214Let's examine the facts as we know them. There was a primary. There were people who voted in that primary. There were people who switched parties to vote in that primary and were forced into signing something that is not in the realm of freedom. The vote is supposed to be secret.
    For the State to come down on people who voted is wrong.
    The right to vote in secret came before Ohio was a state.
    If Ohio sanctions one voter they will see a flurry of activity that will stop it.
    Prosecution of Americans for committing the act of voting is ludicrous.
    • doctechnical, on 03/21/2008, -17/+41"Secret" doesn't really enter into it - your party affiliation dictates what ballot you get. Nothing secret about that.
      • ileftfark, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6You missed the point. As they were voting in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, it's understood that they were registered Democrats. What cashman57 is pointing out is that this Commission wants to examine exactly which candidate a voter voted for, which is in direct conflict with established voter law. The fact that you have 20+ diggs on a moronic statement both amazes and scares me.
        • flip2trip, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1It doesn't surprise me, but it does scare me.
      • UglieJosh, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4This is a serious question, please don't bury me without a serious response.

        Why is using your vote to keep a particular candidate out, rather than get another in, not considered a legitimate use of ones vote? I mean, can't I do what I damn well please with my vote? I understand primaries work differently, but even the people in charge of them can't agree on a national system for them.

        I didn't want Kerry to win the last election, but I voted for him in an attempt to just get Bush out. Was that some sort of malicious use of my vote? Am I the only one that is impressed by the, often UNSPOKEN, things like this that occur when strategic voting is used. Personally, I find it amusing, intelligent and scary all at the same time.
    • EatingPie, on 03/21/2008, -12/+78Secret or not, the problem arises when trying to determine "allegiance" to a party.

      I can register either Democrat or Republican at ANY point, and have about equal allegiance. Meaning, I agree and disagree with a variety of the current tenets of both parties at any given moment. So if I switch parties, some politician is going to come along and "determine my allegiance"? IE Tell me what I believe? Thank you, no, Mr. McCarthy.

      -Pie
      • IndigoMoss, on 03/21/2008, -11/+3Please stop signing your comment. [This has been a public service announcement]
      • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -6/+2No but if you write something in a blog or email or on the damn registration (like some dumb voter did) - it becomes pretty easy to convict you of election fraud, as it should be.

        IMO, it should absolutely be against the law to vote for someone you don't want for strategic reasons. If you are a Republican and wanted McCain in office, you shouldn't be allowed to vote for Hillary simply to screw things up. This is a ***** election not an episode of Survivor.
        • tech42er, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4You little prick! Stop supporting a police state and listen: the government has no right to convict me of a thought crime. Who are they to say whether I was doing this maliciously? IS it no longer legal to change my political views? I'll reiterate that political parties are simply private organizations. Going Democrat and then becoming Republican or Independent again (or vice versa) is no different than changing jobs, religions, clubs, whatever! Could the state of Ohio have a law against that? Sure, there are tons of idiotic, unconstitutional laws on the books. But it doesn't matter. Trying to prove I'm guilty of "election fraud" for changing parties is asinine and shows how this country is no longer free, but beholden to the two largest private organization in America, the Democrats and Republicans.
          • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3And you need to listen: the government has every right to convict you for acting maliciously towards others that are completely within their rights. Like if you consistently write to a pro-Republican blog and state on that blog that you're going into the democratic primary for the sole reason of screwing with them, then you act on that intent, you should be prosecuted.

            I'm not supporting a police state, I'm supporting the will of the people. If you go into another party's primary specifically to screw with it, you're the prick. You are trying to game the system, plain and simple.

            This isn't about changing your views, or politics - that's fine and your free to do so. If you go in and do this maliciously and it can be proven - like you write it down somewhere - then yes you are a prick. Some people were stupid enough to do just that - and THEY should be prosecuted. Anything less then that, it shouldn't be.
          • jcims, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2As others have said before, how is this 'tampering'. Every voter has just as much a right to vote to influence the election process in the way they see fit. This party allegiance stuff is nauseating. I am a Republican and DON'T want McCain to win, can i vote for Obama? Or could the Republican party say i've violated my allegiance to their party?

            It's rediculous.
      • EatingPie, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3babar77, you can defend this position and sound reasonable, but votes are a right that CANNOT have any "intent" strings attached. I mean, there are not -- and never should be -- any restrictions on why you vote one way or another. Once you start moving into asking "why did you vote this way?" you have destroyed the freedom to vote.

        I can choose not to vote -- and a HUGE percentage of the country doesn't. I can choose to flip a coin. Close my eyes and point. Vote for Hillary because Obama's black. Vote for Obama because hated Bill Clinton. Vote for McCain because he owns a truck... etc. There are no restrictions, and there never should be. We pick our leaders. And the key element to picking is being free to pick for our own reasons. Not reasons DICTATED to us by laws that limit our ability to choose freely.

        -Pie
    • provost, on 03/21/2008, -25/+14We aren't talking about people who are legitimately voting, we are talking about people who are trying to rig the vote and stuff ballot boxes. Thats a crime.
      • unpolloloco, on 03/21/2008, -5/+22what's to distinguish them??? switching parties is not a crime - doesn't matter the purpose
        the 2-party system is what is at fault here
        • turpenine, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2rtfa.
        • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1You're right... the greatest measure of distinguishing them is with their own words. If you going to go commit election fraud don't write it down anywhere that can be traced back to you. Outside of that, then it shouldn't be prosecuted. This is why I want Rush behind bars for this - that ***** started us down a very slippery slope so he could make a buck.
        • tech42er, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Apparently, switching parties is a crime now. Go ***** figure. Thank you, 1984.
      • pyroben92, on 03/21/2008, -7/+8The whole Idea of our voting system is to get the man (or women..ugh) into office you want. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with switching parties to keep the harder opponent out of the general election.
        • com2, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6It's called working the system.
          • jcims, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1What part of politics _isn't_ about working the system?
        • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3Yes there is. This is an election - not a ***** episode of Survivor. Allowing someone to skip his primary because his candidate is in the bag to go over and game the system is the equivalent of giving that person two votes - that's *****.
          • ileftfark, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1yes, because this has never happened before in an election. look, i'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but 1) it *is* called "politics" for a reason, and 2) if you have such a moral objection to it, *do* something other than rant on Digg.com. I don't think our system is perfect, but it does allow people a chance to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice. What do you propose?
      • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -3/+10Individuals each casting a single vote is not stuffing the ballot box
        • quisph, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3It's not about how they voted. It's about which ballot they voted on, and the lies they told in order to obtain those ballots.
        • cvindustries, on 03/21/2008, -2/+5Quisph, you're a dolt.
        • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Yes it is. It effectively gives them two votes. They don't have to vote for the person they want because it's in the bag - so they go over and vote for the weakest candidate. That in all practical terms has the same effect as if that person had two votes.
          • ileftfark, on 03/22/2008, -0/+20 votes for Republican + 1 vote for Democrat = 2 votes (???)

            must be that "new math" they're teaching the kids these days...
          • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1The effect is if they were able to go and vote for McCain, then walk in and vote the democrat least electable. Since they don't have to vote for McCain, they don't have to cast that vote. So yes, it has the effect of two votes.

            In other words, if that person's vote would have changed had there been a significant challenger to McCain, then yeah it has the effect of two votes because a vote would have been taken away from the least electable democrat.
          • jcims, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1No, they chose to vote for the race that has the greater priority to them. What if i, as a Republican, believe McCain is the wrong choice, but instead of voting for who i want on the Republican ticket, i vote for Obama because i don't believe McCain can win against him. I'm not voting for Obama, i'm voting against McCain. How is that different? And either way, what's wrong with it?
      • FearlessFreep, on 03/21/2008, -2/+9as long as everyone who wants to vote as opportunity to vote once and once only...no crime
        • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2*****. You should only be allowed to vote for the person you would actually vote for in the general. Otherwise you're gaming the election and blocking a candidate that might actually win in the general.

          This is so hypocritical of digg to support this. How many times have people in this place bitched about how people should only be voting on the issues. This this comes up and all of a sudden it's ok to game the system and not vote on the issues?

          This is an election - not an episode of survivor.
          • ileftfark, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2... so you can't change your mind or learn something new? you are honestly saying people should "only be able to vote for the candidate they would vote for in the general election"? Then why don't we just have the campaigns and Presidential election all in the same day, so the only vote a person can cast will be their final vote? Do you see how retarded your suggestion is?
          • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Why is it everyone assumes that I'm talking about people changing their mind - I'm not! If you actually change your mind, you are completely allowed to. However if you are knowing voting for a person - at that specific moment in time you are voting for that person - only because you want to screw with the primary and the person you are voting for is not the person you would vote in the general - had it been that same day - you should not be allowed to vote.

            Bottom line, if you walk into a primary specifically to cause malaise, you should be prosecuted. If you honestly vote for one person in the primary, then change your mind in the general - that is completely allowed.

            This article is about people going in to the voting booth to cause malaise and a radio talk show host that obviously encouraged it.
      • flip2trip, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Is your name Moe Ronn?
    • rz8472, on 03/21/2008, -4/+16To be fair, the liberal blog DailyKos asked people to vote Mitt Romney in the Michigan primaries to keep his hopes alive (since the Democratic primary wasn't going to count for anything anyways)
      • babar77, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3And I find that just as wrong as voting for Clinton to help McCain. I think that is just as reprehensible as Rush.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Does that require switching party affiliation? Does it involve swearing allegiance to the party? Is it a crime to lie when doing that?

        If not, you're comparing apples and oranges...
    • HonestAbe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+16The general election is secret, but I don't think this has anything to do with primaries. Parties could decide their candidates by boxing match if they wanted to. Can't they also decide to have non-secret ballots if they want to?
      • Memitim, on 03/21/2008, -6/+7They can play the world's largest game of musical chairs for all I care. What I do care about is the "criminal charges" portion. They want to kick people out of their political party and bar them from ever joining again then have a ball, but don't waste my ***** tax money creating criminals because somebody is butthurt about people not playing along with their personal view of how voting should work. Those people who voted acted in accordance with the law.
        • whitlock11111, on 03/21/2008, -4/+8"Those people who voted acted in accordance with the law."
          Actually they didn't.
          From the article we're all talking about: "Lying on the signed statement is a fifth-degree felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine."
          That's the law, and they broke it.
          • PopcornDave, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3But how can you call in to question someone who says something to the effect of "Well I was a republican, but the democratic position looked like the better position when I casted my vote, but now that I've had time to think about it more, I don't like it and I'm going to go back to being a republican"? Are you seriously going to call for a prosecution because someone may have, albeit questionably, changed their mind?
          • mal1964, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Prove it! It could be a hanging chad. or I made a mistake these ballots are so confusing. Its a waste of time and money.
          • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2If you write somewhere that you are going into the election to cause problems and it can be tracked back to you (which some people are dumb enough to do it, or because they didn't realize they were breaking a law) you should be prosecuted because you just admit guilt.
          • mal1964, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Its just a scare tactic for future primary elections. Its hard to prove and just pain silly when there are much bigger fish to fry.
          • Memitim, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Except that in this case they are trying to prosecute thoughtcrime, not false witness or accusation of an actual event. You honestly think that any statement dictating how someone should think as a result of being signed is going to have any legal standing, particularly in terms of a criminal charge rather than a civil suit? I get that there are a lot of people proclaiming the impending doom of the USA, but I think we've still got a bit of breathing room before not thinking and feeling how you said you would for an extended period of time becomes a crime.
      • swiftheart, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2"Can't they also decide to have non-secret ballots if they want to?"

        Yes, caucuses are typically not secret.
    • sulthernao, on 03/21/2008, -3/+9The right to vote in secret came well after Ohio was a state. You can thank progressives/populists of the turn of the century for enacting Australian Ballot. I'm not making this up. It was a response to employers pressuring their employees to vote one way or another. The first president to be elected under a secret ballot was Grover Cleveland. I agree with you though, this prosecution is malicious and won't go anywhere. There is no way that they can prosecute people because they don't know who people voted for and the affidavits won't hold any legal ground (people can change their minds).
      • exomni, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4The Democratic party is not the United States of America, you have no right to secrecy in an election for private political parties. They can do whatever the ***** they want. They could decide their candidate with a coin-toss, that's their business.

        Anyone can run for president come general election, if they don't want to be a member of any party or follow by the rules of any party, more power to them.
        • synarchy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Good point, and the general population should not be paying for the balloting either. Let the parties handle it all on their own dime.
    • mal1964, on 03/21/2008, -8/+4You could close your eyes and point , its your vote you can do what you want with it. There will be no charges.
    • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -6/+3They won't be prosecuted for doing something that they thought would be bad for the country, they obviously think the republican nominee is better for the country than Obama. The suit has to be over doing something that they didn't believe to be good for the PARTY. The US justice system should not be used to prosecute those who do not have enough party loyalty. These cases will be tried in courts presided over by judges appointed by members of that party (they would not file this case in a court headed by a republican appointed judge).
      This is a recipe for disaster and sounds like it would be something you'd hear from a documentary about how some tyrannical dictator came to power.
    • wishninja, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4I agree besides this type of freedom will send the two party system crashing to the ground which is exactly what I would love to see. I hope we have crossover votes popular every year.
    • exomni, on 03/21/2008, -3/+17Why should the vote be secret? Why shouldn't they be forced to sign something? If you want to participate in a party's program, you follow their ***** rules.

      We're not talking about the general election, we're talking about private political parties.
      • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2The vote should be secret because then anyone who votes for a loser won't have to be afraid of retribution by those who are the winners. I don't need my neighbors to know who I voted for and I have a right to participate without having to think about anything except who I want to vote for
      • dood, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I agree, in part. If you're signed up to vote for one party in a primary, you shouldn't vote for someone in another party. That is incredibly easy for them to determine, with a relatively minor change -- just ask the parties to hold their own elections to pick their candidates. The state does not need to be involved at all, and there's no way you can "crossover," since it's unlikely that Obama or Clinton will appear on the GOP ticket.

        However, as long as they involve the state, the vote needs to be absolutely secret.
        • exomni, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I agree that the states should have less involvement in the party's primaries. But that's all.
    • SocialPoison, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Not to poke at the exact thing, but our friggin' ballots explicitly said that our party affiliation would NOT be kept secret.
    • prisoner24601, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7"The board has the power to issue subpoenas, forcing voters to testify about their intent..."

      Epic 5th amendment fail.
      • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2The 5th amendment did not fail - someone can still walk in and plead the 5th.
        • synarchy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Translated for you: The quoted passage is invalidated on its face due to the fact that the 5th amendment guarantees no one can be compelled to testify to facts that may incriminate themselves.
    • toasty168, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1agreed, although I think it's wrong to game the primaries to help your party, there's really nothing that could or should be done about it. it's something that can't be fixed without breaking something else. better to condemn it and leave it at that.
      • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Unless someone is dumb enough to admit guilt - which is entirely possible. Apparently Rush was dumb didn't realize he was committing a crime when he actively encouraged everyone to do just that on a public airway.
    • Fremen93, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Uhm its not a secret which party you're voting for. Your entire post makes no sense, since the only crime here is pretending to be a democrat...
    • betona, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, they may know which party, but they have no idea *who* you voted for, if at all. Lots of people don't vote at all on some races in an election, a fact you figure out really quickly if you've ever been at the offices where they post election results and the math doesn't add up. For example, I never vote for uncontested candidates.

      Besides, you should be able to vote however you want to, no matter what. And don't the parties encourage you to change over and join their side?
  • inboxnews, on 03/21/2008, -5/+59Operation Chaos... Hilarious!
    • PoopStick, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6no *****, its always something
    • jabberwolf, on 03/22/2008, -3/+5Obamites bitching about something AGAIN????
      Or is it the Clintonians because Republicans were upset with Mccain and threatening to rally behind Clinton?
      OMFG when do democrats not bitch, whine, and blame someone else?!?!
  • pentupentropy, on 03/21/2008, -13/+45Part of the whole process is this strategy. People may be a little less than scrupulous by doing these things, but they haven't broken any laws that I know of. I changed affiliations to vote for Ron Paul. I actually wanted him to win, but since he's not in the running I'll be voting blue in the election.
    • exgop, on 03/21/2008, -25/+11Your a *****-en hypocrite or an idiot. Ron Paul is for small government, PERSONAL freedom PERSONAL responsibility. Democrats are for controlling your life, whether it be your health care, your child's education your right to bear arms, Democrats are all about control. I will concede that republicans have their hand in the control "cookie jar" ie abortion. But they are for PERSONAL freedom and PERSONAL responsibility. The only reason I didn't vote for Paul is that isolationism does not work. We can not put our collective heads in the sand and hope the CULT of Islam goes away.
      • postingbh, on 03/21/2008, -4/+13"Democrats are for controlling your life, whether it be your health care, your child's education your right to bear arms, Democrats are all about control."
        - Replace "Democrats" with "Republicans" and it still works. The Republicans brought you the Medicare Modernization act and No Child Let Behind. Yep, those are all about "PERSONAL freedom and PERSONAL responsiblity."
        • Sparkster185, on 03/21/2008, -4/+11Don't forget the "Patriot" Act
        • unpolloloco, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7the republicans of the past were for that.......
          i think Colbert might be the best option right now........
        • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Republicans actually tended to choose positions and justify them with arguments of 'freedom' relatively frequently before 9/11. They don't care about freedom any more than the democrats now except for guns.
        • philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5moderate to liberal republicans, this is why conservative republicans cant stand McCain. If I vote for him, and thats a very big if, I will hold my nose and stick a cork up my backside. I know he is going to stink at what he does, and us conservatives are going to get the shaft
      • Shiftgood, on 03/21/2008, -4/+9Yeah... i feel so free since Clintion left office... wow... how fresh the air is, how green the grass.

        I wish you could choke on your own stupidity.
      • Ne007, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4NeoCons are pro-war liberals. Plain and simple.

        Ron Paul was the only true conservative in the race.

        Obama will certainly have less spending than McCain, because McCain will be just like Bush, a big government, pro-welfare, pro-war liberal.

        You see, Democrats are better because they don't want to fund the never-ending spend-happy, sponsored-by China, "war on terror". Therefore, they are more conservative.
        • philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I have read articles that place both Obama and Clinton will add 600 to 800 billion a year in spending. It doesn't matter why we are overspending, we just need to stop. There is no reason why we are spending 3 trillion a year. We should be spending 1/3 of that amount.
      • senatorpjt, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Democrats are for social freedom with economic control and Republicans are for economic freedom with social control. Paul wanted both, which was apparently too much.
    • InRussetShadows, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3I disagree with your actions, but they are not illegal as far as I can tell.
      • m1zl3d, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3You disagree with someone voting for who they think is best suited for President?

        I also voted Ron Paul and stated "Republican" when I voted but on election day I'm voting Obama since Ron Paul didn't make it. I don't want to see another warmonger make it to the Presidency.

        Who cares about minor issues when we have major things to worry about like this mess of a war Bush has gotten us into or the situation of our economy and how the price of our dollar continues to fall as the price of oil continues to go up. The ***** is about to hit the fan for our country and I for one want someone who is willing to step up to the plate to get us back in shape. Whether that person is Democrat or Republican is beside the point. I wish they would get rid of both parties.
        • philipl411, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1How is Obama going to stop the dollar from falling? How is he going to get the country back in shape?
          • postingbh, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Ending the war in Iraq would be a good start because it increases the price of oil, racks up huge debt, and jacks up the cost of borrowing money.
          • m1zl3d, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

            His website has a whole slew of reasons why I think he could improve the economy. The main reason I like him is that he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and end the war and thus save us $12 Billion a month. Oil prices have done nothing but gone up and the price of our dollar has dropped since the Iraq war.

            My question to you is why do you think Clinton or McCain could do better?

            Here's a quote from McCain...

            McCain: “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should. … I’ve got Greenspan’s book.”
        • philipl411, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1First, I am a conservative. I don't think Clinton or McCain can do any better. I have read his website and the only thing he seem to believe is government needs to throw money at the problem. Saving 12 billion from the war and spending it on whatever program he passes isn't doing us any favors. Spending money we don't have is wrong no matter where it is spent
          • postingbh, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2"Saving 12 billion from the war and spending it on whatever program he passes isn't doing us any favors."
            - Still saves American lives.
          • philipl411, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"Saving 12 billion from the war and spending it on whatever program he passes isn't doing us any favors."
            - Still saves American lives.

            That wasn't the point of the post and you are changing the context of the message. The point was the cost of the war was causing the dollar to slide. The number of lives lost in Iraq is not affect the dollar, yes it affects people and their lives, but not the dollar.
    • lydecker, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3I was impressed with Ron Paul, and I wanted to vote for him. I wasn't sure that changing to Republican would be that bad, I could consider it would be bad if I thought he could not appeal to Republican voters but he ran as Republican. But there were Republicans who liked him, and the people who voted for him were doing it because they wanted him to win.

      I would think that in a primary, you vote for the candidate you want to lead the country, and that's all. Manipulating the system because it has loopholes is in my opinion very wrong.
      • gofalcons, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1No, making people think that the system only includes two options *democrat and republican* is wrong. That's the real voter fraud. You can vote for anyone you want to.
    • diggduggDOOM, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3"but they haven't broken any laws that I know of."

      Try reading the article.
      • Memitim, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3What law? Pledging allegiance with intent not to abide by an arbitrary determination of what constitutes allegiance? Christ, most of this ignorant country votes on the basis of denying another candidate the position rather than voting for a candidate. It's pretty stupid but it sure as hell isn't illegal, no matter how some retards in Ohio decide it should be. After the past decade I swear that Ohio has become the epicenter for promoting the failure of democracy in our great nation.
    • biotch, on 03/21/2008, -2/+16Its not illegal to switch ... its illegal to switch with malicious intent. The intent is hard to prove though ... but with messages like "just for one day". Its a no brainer.
      • artisresistance, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5Who's the ***** moron digging you down? You've summed up the issue and there are no holes in what you've said.
      • melshae, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2condemning people based on "intent" is wrong and unconstitutional, as 'intent' cannot be proven!
      • gofalcons, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Hmmm, so it's about thought crimes now huh? Shhhh, did you hear that? Did you hear Orwell just roll over?
    • MCBAIKO, on 03/21/2008, -4/+7Actually Ron Paul IS STILL IN THE RACE! There is a lot of time between now and the GOP Convention in September. Anything can happen... We are marching on Washington June 21st to show our support for Dr. Paul. Please join us. And to lydecker, please reconsider voting for Ron Paul. If you'd do just a bit more research you will find that Dr. Paul is NOT an isolationist, as the MSM would have you believe. He encourages free trade with ALL countries (including Cuba). What he does NOT believe in is meddling with the affairs of other countries, dictating to them how they should live, what they should believe, how to run their economy, elections etc... There is a HUGE difference between Isolationism and Non-Interventionalism. And Ron Paul is a Non-Interventionalist, NOT AN ISOLATIONIST.
      • lydecker, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4Oh, believe me, I know he's not isolationist. I still have love for RP.
      • steeeeve, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Nothing can happen. Huckabee dropped out, when his chances became not only practically but mathematically zero. So, unfortunately, are those of Ron Paul.
    • swiftheart, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Ohio law doesn't prevent switching. If a person is switching parties, the pollworker has the *option* to "challenge" the voter and make them sign an oath saying that they are truly interested in the tenets and policies of the party they're switching to. (The pollworker is supposed to instruct the person to raise their hand and repeat some line...)

      Obviously if the person clearly indicates that and they have signed and oath but somehow are not following it (like by altering the written oath) then they have perjured themselves to an elections official, and that's elections fraud.

      Challenging primary voters is a county by county thing. I was a pollworker for years in Franklin County--and the attitude here was to not bother. (Pollworker classes here didn't even go over the process.) Our ex-Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, wanted the challenge law dropped. Other counties obviously took the challenge law more seriously.
  • schlank, on 03/21/2008, -14/+6Dugg!
  • DrPaul2008, on 03/21/2008, -7/+35I hope this includes the "crossover" candidates who lied about what they believe, or what they will do... which is all of them.
  • doctechnical, on 03/21/2008, -7/+63How in the world do they intend to prosecute this? They only person in the world who knows whether or not the person really, truly was a Democrat (that day) is the person who's being prosecuted. Excuse me, Mr. ***** DA, but I'm pleading the Fifth. You have no evidence, go pound sand.
    Amazing.
    • InRussetShadows, on 03/21/2008, -4/+17Are they going to follow people around and prosecute them if they don't vote Dem in the primary? What if they had a change of heart between now and then? I agree. This is ridiculous.
      • sulthernao, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2And more importantly, how would they know how you voted (in the General Election, I mean)?
    • biotch, on 03/21/2008, -7/+2
      I heard reports of the Dems doing this in another state. They should investigate them too. I think everyone should be taught a lesson here. Maintaining the purity of our votes as best we can is our most rooted hope. Dems are particularly sensitive about this considering the issues surrounding diebold from the last election.
    • tdog138, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1They just have to show that the person switched parties with malicious intent. This is the same standard that newspaper editors and writers are put under when someone claims libel. It is a hard standard to overcome, but not impossible, as writers are occasionally found guilty of libel. With enough circumstantial evidence, it can be done. Whether or not this is a wise law is another question.
      • cubicledrone, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1And how exactly does one determine what is and is not a "malicious" vote? First judge to see this case will do a Ray Guy impression with it right through the air vent.
        • babar77, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Not if the person admitted guilt. Rush committed a crime for enthusiastically calling his listeners to break the law. I'm surprised he's not being prosecuted because it's a slam dunk case.
        • flip2trip, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1babar77--- I can't decide if you are a moron or a retard--oh well, doesn't matter I guess.
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2This is a ridiculous investigation and will go nowhere. How can they separate the many people who really ARE switching from GOP to Democrat this time?
    • LanMan66, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Well they can get that one poor schmuck who was stupid enough to write "For one day only" on his party pledge card. ;)
    • UrinalPooper, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3The point isn't to actually prosecute people, it's to scare people. The courts eventually laugh away any prosecutions.

    • SocialPoison, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1People had to sign their party of choice on their ballot. That's how.
    • PeterODactyl, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Prosecutors have been proving intent in court for quite some time now. I agree with you, but that doesn't stop them.
  • dunderballer, on 03/21/2008, -9/+46Why should voters have to pledge allegiance to a political party in a primary? That is unamerican. No one on digg was complaining about non-GOP voters doing so to vote for Ron Paul back in the Paulie days.
    • w00tfest99, on 03/21/2008, -9/+9They should pledge allegiance to a party for the primary because it's the party's primary. This isn't a government organized thing, it's the parties. You don't need to have a party affiliation for voting in the general election though.
      • Yamoth, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1Then let the party determined how the voting should be carried out. There are no requirement for a person to be affiliated to a party and there are no penalty for a same person to leave. So technically what these people choose to do is totally legal. Government have more important to worry about that simple thing like this.
      • unpolloloco, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4then its not the government's place to prosecute.
    • ruyen, on 03/21/2008, -4/+11If you don't like the party's rules in their primary, you don't vote in their primary. There are primary and caucus rules for each party to determine their nominee.
      • Defuser, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2Oh, shut the hell up. I vote for a PERSON, not for a Party.
    • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1This cannot be ignored because its a party thing. There are two parties in this country, if the nominating practices for either one are not free, open and the votes aren't secret then it is a crime against the principles that created this country. .
    • hackiavelli, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Are you kidding? That's like asking why you have to be a member of the Academy of Motion Pictures to vote for the Oscars. Why should a person outside an organization expect to have any say in it?
    • swiftheart, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1It's a good question. Some states have experimented with blanket primaries--allowing everyone to vote in all the party primaries. Other states have very closed caucuses, or make it extremely difficult to switch parties. Ohio has a semi-open system where you can switch the day of the primary, but then the pollworker might make you take the oath of allegiance. (For what it's worth, some counties encourage pollworkers to do that, others discourage it, and others don't care one way or another.) The last Secretary of State wanted the law eliminated.

      This situation is "fun" because there are people who quite clearly perjured themselves when they took the oath. Me personally, I'd get rid of the law and go to a blanket primary. I'd support closed primaries more if we had multi-party democracy, but when you only have two parties, you basically have one half of the government and the other half, so excluding participating in that system seems irresponsible to me.
      • hackiavelli, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1To me it seems unfair because I have the same political beliefs as the party and have donated time and money over the years. To give someone the same vote as me who has no affiliation or vested interest in the party and may in fact want to actively sabotage it for the election just seems wrong.

        At the same time I believe that we should strive to keep the process more open than closed (even when it can sometime affect the process negatively) and that the people who vote maliciously are a minority.
  • reuscel, on 03/21/2008, -9/+32Does the term "secret ballot" mean anything to you people?
    • provost, on 03/21/2008, -5/+10so its ok for people to rig an election because after all, their votes are a secret? There is voting and then there is intent to engage is criminal activity. The votes are part of the commons, which means we all own them. Shame on you for standing up for people that are trying to make a mockery out of it.
      • tdog138, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4Yeah, I agree. There is a valid reason behind this law. Why are we so quick to defend people that want to switch parties just to damage the electoral process. When Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to switch and vote for Hillary Clinton in order to draw out the Democratic Primary, I didn't see a ton of people rushing to his defense.
      • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2You're the one making a mockery out of it by wanting to prosecute lawful political participation. If there were competency tests at the polls you'd be judged too ***** stupid to live let alone vote, but those were ruled unconstitutional long ago. Shame on you for not understanding a thing about why and how this country works. Get your ***** head out of your ass
        • provost, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2that explains why they are investigating "illegal crossover voting" in ohio regarding this.. notice the word illegal in there.

          There are a myriad of names I could call you too, but I have decided not to because walking through life with such a narcissist attitude and not known you are wrong most of the time and have people look down on you because of it is punishment enough for you.
    • Elliuotatar, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6Primaries are not something that is written in the constitution. They're not voting for the president. They're voting for someone who they want their party to run for president. It's not secret what party you're affiliated with, and it doesn't matter who they voted for. The only thing this investigation would look at is if they said they were democrat when they were really republican. That's not secret information. They have to register their party affiliation to be allowed to vote in the primary.
      • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1How do you tell when someone is 'really republican'? You have to pick them apart and develop a system for deciding how to decide which democrats are republicans. Are all pro-lifers kicked out of the party? Are all capitalists out of the party? This is ***** since you'll end up finding out things about people that they have no business knowing and prosecute them for participating in political activity based on a bunch of things that are comjpletely legal.

        This is the reason why many states require 60 days advanced registration anyway
        • Elliuotatar, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Cut them open and look for their black heart?

          Or I guess you could just prick their finger and see if tar runs through their veins.
      • swiftheart, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1They aren't written into the US Constitution. They are however a requirement in the Ohio Constitution. It was written in there to prevent "backdoor politics" from choosing candidates.
    • swiftheart, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0The primary ballot disclosure is too valuable to politicians, that's why it's not secret.

      You could easily run a primary like Ohio's and not disclose what ballot a person selects. It would be a very minor technical change.

      But the parties themselves are hungry for the data. The public registration data include name, address, date of birth, primary ballots voted and voting history (which elections when.) The data is simply too good for the politicians to pass up--it helps with candidate campaign effort.
  • Schul983, on 03/21/2008, -16/+10I dont know if you guys know about voting in Ohio but you PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE to the party you are voting for, and when you do it for malicious purposes it is voter fraud straight up.
    • exgop, on 03/21/2008, -7/+10I never pledged allegiance to any party, I just checked a box
    • Skitzzo, on 03/21/2008, -6/+8You can pledge allegiance to the party for a short period of time. How are you to know whether someone had a change of heart or not? Get a clue. When Democratic blogs called for Democrats to vote in Republican primaries, you idiots never said a word. When it comes back to bite you in the ass, you try to scream voter fraud.
    • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2Requiring a pledge of allegiance to anything but the US as a pre-requisite for political participation is undemocratic
      • thebellmaster1x, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1Primaries are a function of the party, not of the government. Rules pertaining to the government do not apply, then, to the parties' elections—only to the actual federal election.
        • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1They aren't going after crossovers because they didn't follow the rules, they're going after crossovers because they didn't adhere to their pledge of allegiance to the democratic party. Government rules don't come into play except for the fact that they're pursuing action in government courts. If the government wants to keep themselves out of it then they would refuse to take the case.
          Should federal contract law cover a pledge regulating the manner with which one will participate in the political process? Absolutely not.
      • pbd1637, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1If the rules apply to the party and not the government, why is the government investigating? What are you going to do, lock them in the basement? On the day of the general election, how are you going to prove they didn't vote democrat?
        No, no, no. This is whiny democrats who are all upset that the republicans did to them what they have doing for a long time. Get over it.
    • synarchy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2No one has the right to tell another person what to believe or when to change their mind when it comes to political thought. I don't care if it's Republicrats doing it to Demipublicans or vice versa.
  • strafefire, on 03/21/2008, -7/+15Ohio Senator Bob Ney + Voter fraud in Cuyahoga county and others + Hillary win in primary + this ***** = Ohio is now officially on notice!
    • ZHEStorm, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1I find it hilarious that everyone automatically assumes that NObama would win in Ohio! There are a lot of Digg users that need to get a brain.

      Hillary Clinton '08!
      • ctrlv, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Morans didn't know about the fact that they can't get a brain.
  • vspazv, on 03/21/2008, -4/+12For anyone that wants an explanation for this just remember American Idol last year with Sajaya.
    Now think of Sanjaya as a candidate for party A and having thousands of voters from party B registering as party A followers to vote for him in the primaries and eliminating legitimate candidates out of the race.
  • Alfonzo, on 03/21/2008, -18/+29I find it so disgusting that I have to check a "Party Allegiance" to be able to vote. Wake up, America.
    • exgop, on 03/21/2008, -6/+5Aligning oneself with a political party is very American.YOu tend to associate with like minded people. Im not saying I don't have liberal friends. But I want my voice heard. Thats why I check a box.
      • thecolor11, on 03/21/2008, -4/+7If either of these political parties captured a small portion of my political desire, then I would agree with you. The problem is that they don't. Why should I have to pledge allegiance to a party I don't agree with to voice my opinion. Being the first democracy certainly doesn't make us the best.
      • Yamoth, on 03/21/2008, -4/+3If you wanted your voice to be heard, speak up. Checking a box alone doesn't mean much. If anything, it make you a sheep.
        • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Especially if it leads to one checking the 'straight party' boxes on election day
    • eir574, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10You don't have to declare a party affiliation to vote in the general election. You may not like the way the democrats and republicans run their primaries, but you'll have to take that up with them. They're not under any obligation to hold a primary at all.
    • RRJackson, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4You don't have to ally yourself with a party unless you want to participate in their primary process. If you don't have any desire to belong to either party then I can't see why you're interested in their primaries.
    • Calcularius, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6It's a primary, not the same as an election.
      We Democrats want to pick our candidate. If you're not a Democrat, please stay out of the process.
      (Notice I said 'please' even though I don't have to, since it's already illegal.)

      Find out the facts before being carried away by your emotions (in this case, disgust.)
    • pr0t0, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Well, you don't actually HAVE to declare a party. You can just say you're independent. I did. It's nobody's damn business which party I am voting for. The only thing declaring the party does is strip out the other party's candidates from your list of options in the voting booth. If you declare indy, you see everyone running. Which is good because I may want to vote heavy for one party, but perhaps I'm intelligent enough to recognize there are some candidates on the other side who are of better character than my favored party's candidates.
  • saska, on 03/21/2008, -11/+17First off, I think having to declare allegiance to a party in order to vote is wrong.

    Secondly, I believe we could resolve a lot of these issues by simply holding a primary, one primary, in each state, with a round robin of early vs. late dates, in which you got to vote once for one person and then the parties determined the winners in the election based on who in their party got the most votes.

    But in this situation, people will not be prosecuted over which candidate they voted for, if it goes forward. They'll be prosecuted for signing a party affiliation that is, as the law stands, a binding document, and for not intending to honor that legal binding. If they feel that the law is unjust, they can claim civil disobedience as a defense and see if it flies. The thing that has to change is the system itself, though.
    • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5You don't have to declare an allegiance to vote in hte genreal primary. But if you want to vote in the primariies which are SPECIFICALLY FOR one party, then you do. You shouldn't get to vote for the future of a club unless you are PART of the club.
      • saska, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1See, that's part of what I'm getting at. I know how the system works. I was talking about part of what might fix it.

        If there's a single primary on a single day, you can't go to the same place and vote twice. The headache associated with making sure people don't actually vote twice in both parties' primaries is part of what torpedoed the Michigan re-vote. And frankly I doubt that most elections boards do any kind of actual checking to verify that people don't vote twice when primaries are on different dates.
    • Calcularius, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4It's a primary, not the same as an election.
      We Democrats want to pick our candidate. If you're not a Democrat, please stay out of the process.
      (Notice I said 'please' even though I don't have to, since it's already illegal.)
      • saska, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Your point is valid, particularly in states like Ohio that require you to be a member of the party to vote. So, when should the cutoff be for registering with a party?

        Isn't the whole point here that people were "registering" with a party to vote in its primary without actually being a member of the party?
      • bingobongony, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Hopefully you get your g-string in a bunch when the EXACT same thing happened when democrats did it ealier.

        erwise you would be nothing more than a pathetic, worthless hypocrite. ARE you a pathetic, worthless hypocrite?

        And it is not illegal. It doesn't say how LONG you have to be a registered Democrat. Nor does being a registered Democrat force you to vote for the Democrat in the general election.
  • Iconoclast25, on 03/21/2008, -4/+14Originally, I registered as an Independent ("undeclared" in NH legalese) so I could vote in either primary (and switching back to Independent after "declaring" myself). I haven't bothered since 1976, as there's not been a serious dimocrap candidate at any level I would turn my head to spit on. The point is, however, that people do this all the time, for whatever reasons. It is no bureaucrat's business what that reason might be.
  • rhabd0mancer, on 03/21/2008, -19/+11"One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only.""

    That idiot deserves to be jailed.
    • Taciturn, on 03/21/2008, -5/+8That's just a signing statement. The president does it and that means that it is not illegal.
    • lordno, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4If dems would use a winner take all system y'all would not have to worry about this sorta thing.
    • mindwalker, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3Why? If he added "For one day only" then he was actually being honest, and indeed more truthful than those who did not make such an addendum while at the same time having no intention of supporting the party later on.
    • fotbr, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Why? "That idiot" was being truthful, and probably is the only crossover that DIDN'T lie.
    • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Have you ever said the pledge of allegience because what you just said makes it sound like you did so without the intent to uphold the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution. Since you seem to be more interested in eroding the freedom that this country was founded on, your pledge is perjurous and treasonous. Your citizenship should be revoked and you should be deported.
      Your freedom of expression has just been limited to things that can be interpreted as loyal to those that you have pledged allegiance to, do you want to live in a country like that?
  • Skitzzo, on 03/21/2008, -5/+27Having to declare allegiance to a party in order to vote in their primary is not wrong. It's their primary and they can establish the rules for that election. However, you'll never be able to prove whether the crossover voters actually wanted Hillary to win or whether they were doing it maliciously so have fun trying to prosecute people.

    Also, I find it interesting to note that no one in the media said a word when Democrats were crossing over and voting for McCain but now that it's happening to the Democrat party everyone is up in arms about it.
    • SocialPoison, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1You didn't have to pledge allegiance. If you read the thing carefully, what the legal oath thing said is that you would NOT participate in any other primary or caucus (or whatever) for any party but the one you signed for. That's it.
    • swiftheart, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0"Having to declare allegiance to a party in order to vote in their primary is not wrong. It's their primary and they can establish the rules for that election."

      For what it's worth, this is a state law, and the decision where an oath of allegiance has to be made is up to the pollworker. Obviously the law was created at one time by some people who were Democrats and some who were Republicans, but Ohio law strictly covers primary activities--the Ohio Constitution forbids caucuses. Primaries must be conducted by the state under state rules.
  • Yamoth, on 03/21/2008, -3/+8Okay let get a few thing straight. First of all, primary presidential election is not even a real election, the candidate elected during the primary doesn't necessary going to become the president and the one that looses can still choose to run for presidency if they chooses to. In general, the presidential primary is more or less a private matter that within it own party and thus shouldn't even be regulated in any way by the government. All moving matter concerning presidential primary should be left to their own party to regulate which ever why they see fit.
    Honestly, I don't even know why we couple the presidential primary with other state voting matter in the first place.
    • swiftheart, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0"I don't even know why we couple the presidential primary with other state voting matter in the first place."

      It's a requirement of the Ohio Constitution. It was added in about 100 years ago to prevent "backroom politics." Before that candidates might have been selected only at convention. Perhaps we might be a caucus state had the state constitution not been amended. Who knows.
    • synarchy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Leiberman is a good example of someone who lost the Democrat primary last time around, but went ahead and ran as an independent and won AGAINST the guy who beat him in the primary. You are right, I don't care how the demacrubs choose their criminals, they still won't get my vote.
  • 99CentFreedom, on 03/21/2008, -22/+14All smoke and mirrors in our phony democracy ladies and gentleman, Ron Paul is our only salvation from this kind of mischief and fraud.
    • khail250, on 03/21/2008, -10/+5Delusional...
    • onetimer, on 03/21/2008, -12/+6Ron paul...it's ringing a bell...


      Oh yeah, isn't that the guy with 21 delegates who lost to John McCain's 1300+ delegates? You realize the race for the GOP nomination is over, and that RP said he wouldn't run as a third party, right? At this point, it you're still a libertarian, you might as well write in somebody with all your libertarian policies, but without the rightwing-christian-baggage that Paul has.
      • 99CentFreedom, on 03/21/2008, -8/+5McCain will be disqualified once people wake up and realize he is not -constitutionally- eligible to be President. Then again, who cares about the constitution these days anyway.
        • onetimer, on 03/21/2008, -10/+6Awwh, how cute, you're still clinging on to that "mcCain-isnt-qualified-to-be-president" truther lie.

          EVEN if that were magically the truth, why do you assume Paul would be a shoe in? He still only has roughly 1/10th of the amounts of delegates that Romney has, even even less compared to Huckabee.

          Honestly, what kind of realistic scenario can you possibly envision in which paul somehow wins the GOP nomination?
        • fotbr, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Wait, what? Why do you claim McCain isn't constitutionally eligible? I obviously missed something.
        • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -5/+4No, fotbr...you didn't miss anything. 99CentFreedom did. He is still grasping for that straw that McCain is not a natural born citizen. Of course, he IS...and people who know FAR more about the Constitution than 99CentFreedom all agree that this would NOT disqualify McCain. But when you are desperate, you gotta do whatever it takes o stave off suicide. And that is what 99CentFreedom is doing.
    • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -6/+6My god...are you people still around?
  • MercedRocks, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6Lame. Cali didnt go after cross over voters in 2000 or 2004. If you dont like other people monkeying with your choice than CONFINE THE VOTE to members of your own party. There's more important ***** to worry about than taking people to court over the intent of their votes.
  • Alexcarrier, on 03/21/2008, -4/+10Nice article picture
    • vick3ii, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6You read a story like this and the only thing on your mind is the graphic that I selected by accident. I wonder what's on your mind when you are in the ballot box...oh wait your from Canada...
      • Alexcarrier, on 03/21/2008, -3/+4At least here we don't have such a strange and easily manipulable voting process. Oh and please no more republicans? K thx.
  • allahuakbar, on 03/21/2008, -18/+10I hope they go forward with this. To lie about your party loyalty just so you can screw with primary results is fraud. Fraud is a crime. Fraud = prison.
    • Defuser, on 03/21/2008, -7/+2Da, Comrade. Lying about your Party Loyalty should get you sent to the Gulag for Re-education. *eyes rolled*
    • malman4, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1Being ignorant and claiming knowledge is fraud. Fraud is a crime. Fraud=prison.
    • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Political litmus tests as a pre-requisite to democracy = prison
    • pentalive, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Changing your mind about which party you agree most between the primary and the general with is *NOT* a crime.
    • synarchy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Syllogistic logic is not your strong suit.
  • homedaddy, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5wasting time doing this is as lame as switching parties to vote place what amounts to a negative vote. why don't we spend our effort fixing the system instead of freaking out when things don't break our way.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3I'm pretty sure "fixing the system" is what they're trying to do here.
    • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1How do you know it is a negative vote? Maybe the people that switched to vote did so becuse they figured that if McCain didn't win in November, then they really feel that the one they voted for (and it was NOT just Hillary that got those votes) would be the next best choice.
  • morel42, on 03/21/2008, -15/+9That being said.. Anyone who actually did this.. Needs to be ***** smacked really really hard.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 03/21/2008, -7/+8"Crossover to vote in Democrat primaries. Prolong the Democrat primary battle. Allow the Clintons to bloody up Obama politically, since our side won't do it. Enjoy liberals tearing each other apart. Drain the DNC of campaign cash. Annoy the Drive-By Media... " Liberals wish all these things were illegal. Rush is the man.
  • guytoronto, on 03/21/2008, -3/+11You Americans have the most ***** up way to pick a new President. Party loyalty? Primary elections? WTF?

    Up here in Canada, if you want to help pick the leader of a political party, you have to be a card-carrying member of that party (which costs money). The election process is a one-day, nation convention affair. Efficient, quick, done!
    • Defuser, on 03/21/2008, -3/+7...which just goes to show that no matter what country you live in, you're blind to the inherent stupidity of your own political system. WTF is a "card-carrying member" of a political party, anyway? Down here in the States, you can vote for whoever the hell you feel like voting for. Or at least, you used to be able to, before this horsecrap started up.
      • xtremesniper, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5He's only talking about the process of choosing a leader for a party. When it comes to actually voting for the election that counts, you just have to be a citizen of Canada.
    • exomni, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3guytoronto, you have no idea what the ***** you are talking about, for your sake, please just shut up.
    • malman4, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3And you buy the candidate you want?
    • thebellmaster1x, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3Primaries are not a part of the selection process for the President. They have no association with the general election. Primaries are SOLELY functions of the parties themselves.
      • EffYoo, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Your argument might carry some water if I didn't have to go to the public library to vote with people there who have to follow government election regulations. Why not give out vouchers for extra votes when someone donates money to a political party? How about a raffle where the winner gets 100 extra votes?
    • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2The US should take its democratic cues from a nation that has a Queen as the head of state
  • Ruiner, on 03/21/2008, -3/+12I have 3 point.
    1. Rush Limbaugh called for do this.
    2. I agree that elections are secret
    3. This kind of system is why third party candidates never stand a chance.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Third party candidates never stand a chance because of Duverger's law.

      We would need to change the voting system itself to give them a chance.
      • artisresistance, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3"We would need to change the voting system itself to give them a chance."

        See #3.
    • pentalive, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Daily Coz suggested the same thing (see comment way above)
  • Vorpallion, on 03/21/2008, -6/+5What a waste of time. People can switch parties and vote for who they want whenever they want. The idea that they have to sign loyalty oaths to a certain party is laughably absurd and more than a bit fascist.

    Many people don't even HAVE a party loyalty. Saying folks were lying about it is just idiotic. Only they know about it. Trying to unleash the jack booted legions of thought police gestapo to try to prosecute people for being insufficiently loyal to their political party is rank tyranny.
    • bingobongony, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4I thikn you are confusing the general election with primaries, which are votes within a PRIVATE club.
  • diggB, on 03/21/2008, -5/+7Look, I'm all for Obama and all, but prosecuting voters for voting, even if their purpose is to to game the system, is just wrong.
    • banmaster, on 03/21/2008, -0/+8So you think that gaming the system is okay then??
      • diggB, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2I think gaming the system is highly unethical, but not illegal. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no basis for my argument. Also, what kind of cluster ***** do you think this primary season would turn into if we turn loose a gang of lawyers against the voters. Think how long and drawn out the cases would be. Also, how could you prove party affiliation? What about previously registered Republicans who actually want to vote for a Democrat canidate?
  • greensuit, on 03/21/2008, -3/+8In my city there were about 900 Republicans and over 500 of us switched to Democrat to vote. It was such a large number that immediately Cuyahoga County considered it must have been fraud. Well, I was one, and I did not conspire with anyone, did not listen to Rush Limbaugh, did not do it because of anyone else. I just did it because I wanted to vote Democrat. I believe that is my right. Do you want to prosecute me for that? The guys in front of my in the lines, stated that they were doing it "for this election only." Frankly, if they did, it was within their right to do so. My wife, a life long Democrat, sure did protest when they asked her (in public and out loud) if she was a Democrat or Republican. She said, "What is it any of your business?" When they asked her for her drivers license, she said, "You have no right to ask for that, here is a picture ID from my job, that's all I have to show!" They still demanded a drivers license. This election showed that Cuyahoga County has no idea what the laws about voting require.
    • Calcularius, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3You are an idiot and you broke the law.
      The law is very clear on this matter.
      It is not a general election, it is a primary, nimrod.
      If you don't want to declare a party then you can't vote in the primary, DUH SIMPLE DUH DUH DUH YOU STUPID MORONS ARE ***** UP EVERYTHING YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG
  • Berek, on 03/21/2008, -19/+12Haha. ***** you you stupid Limbaugh assholes. Grow a brain. The only reason this got any press is because your fat drug addicted savior won't shut his ***** up mouth. And he continues to do it today, proclaiming success because he knows it's the only way to get the brain washed republicans to even come close in Novembers election.

    You ***** are afraid as you should be that Obama is going to win the nomination. And he'll stomp on McCain's geriatric Ronald Regan Bush 3 ass come November. Face it, you guys are ***** as you should be. You voted a ***** for 2 terms and now our country is in shambles. It's time to clean house and Obama is the only one that can do it.
  • pyroben92, on 03/21/2008, -8/+3The whole Idea of our voting system is to get the man (or women..ugh) into office you want. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with switching parties to keep the harder opponent out of the general election.
    • thegreattimmyd, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6Yes there is. You can only be a party member if you agree to certain conditions. One of those conditions is a restriction upon "switching parties to keep the harder opponent out of the general election."
  • Defuser, on 03/21/2008, -5/+6And here I thought this was still America, and you could vote for whoever you wanted to vote for. Silly me. I should have realized that it's really all a game between Republicans and Democrats.

    ...just out of curiosity, when did any of us have to "Pledge loyalty" to a political party?
    • Calcularius, on 03/21/2008, -1/+4Silly you, you don't know the difference between a primary and an election.
      Oh, excuse me, I meant to say, STUPID YOU.

      "when did any of us have to "Pledge loyalty" to a political party?"
      When I chose to help my party decide who it's candidate is. HELLO?!?!
      • flip2trip, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1All primary's should be open, period. You get one vote and you can cast that vote for one candidate, Republican, Democrat, Independant or Moron.
        And I guess I'm stupid too, I'm only registered as a Republican--I never pledged loyalty to them.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2When you first wanted to help select a party's candidate.
      If all you want to do is vote in the general election, don't pledge loyalty to either party and stop whining.
  • diggduggDOOM, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6It's clear from this thread that many people have confused the general election (with all associated laws) with the primary process (conducted by the parties without the same laws that govern the general election).
  • SQLserver, on 03/21/2008, -5/+9Why the hell can't Hillary just resign so we can get over all this BS?
    • ronmac, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1I hear she is out polling Obama nationally...maybe he should resign...
      • ZHEStorm, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Amen ronmac2! I live in Indiana and will be glad to have my voice heard! I don't want empty rhetoric funded by Oprah. I want a real candidate with real solutions. Hillary Clinton will be our next President!

        Obama in July 2004: 'There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position [on Iraq] at this stage.'

        HILLARY CLINTON 2008
        http://facts.hillaryhub.com
    • melshae, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1resign as senator of new york? oh, you mean 'drop out' of the race. yes, she should. and you should elucidate better.
  • gleongelpi, on 03/21/2008, -5/+2Everybody just refuse to answer questions. Demand a trial by jury. They won't get one conviction. After that, well, I won't mention other alternatives. You know what I mean. This is a complete travesty of justive. And it comes from someone who has never voted Republican. A person has the right to vote, and change affiliations as of as they want to. If look pretty obvious that some people deep down inside do not believe in the right to vote.
    • captainmage1966, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0 What people use their rights , that would request a backbone and brain. The whole system would be shown that is works if the people did that . The next time that could happen is traffic court would be jammed up over red light camera cases