Unaffiliated Voters of Connecticut - Updated

You have a chance to make history on February 5.

You have a voice in the Democratic Primary.

Connecticut has a closed primary voting sytem,

meaning only those voters registered as Democrats on February 5 can vote in the primary.

There are a large number of unaffiliated (sometimes incorrectly called independent) voters in Connecticut.

Here's the Connecticut rule for those unaffiliated voters who wish to vote for a candidate in the primary on February 5:

In order to vote, unaffiliated voters must affiliate with a party, which they can do in person until noon on Monday, February 4, at their local registrar of voters (often found in the local town hall or municipal building in each community).

This means you can switch from unaffiliated to Democrat until next Monday and vote in Tuesday's primary for the candidate of your choice.

Those voters who wish to switch from unaffiliated to Republican fall under the same rule.

People can also switch from unaffiliated to affiliate with a party by mail but the deadline for that possibility is past (the mail-in card needed to be postmarked January 31).

UPDATE 1 - I just realized that today is January 30, so you still have time to mail in a registration card changing your affiliation if you are now unaffiliated.  That said, time is short, and I wouldn't trust the mail and the registrar's office to process your change in time for Tuesday's vote.  If you want to change, you should go in person to the local registrar's office instead of mailing in a card.

So, if you are unaffiliated, you can go to your local town hall or municipal building and find the registrar of voters office.  You will fill out a card, changing your affiliation to Democrat.

Then you can vote for your candidate.

If you don't know what your affiliation status is, you can find out by calling or visiting your local registrar of voters.

If you wish to unaffiliate again, you can do so by mail or in person after the primary, putting you once again in the unaffiliated category for the general election.

You cannot switch parties (from Democrat to Republican or vice-versa) before this primary in order to vote.  The deadline for is past.

Too many CT voters think they don't have a chance to vote in this primary.  I hope some of you will consider affiliating in order to vote this coming February 5.

Your vote is going to count this election in a way it has not for the most recent, front-loaded presidential elections.

As an Obama supporter, of course I hope you affiliate to vote for Barack Obama.  But, whomever your candidate, I encourage you to make your voice heard.

You have a chance to make history.  Don't miss that chance.

UPDATE 2 - Here is a link to a story in this afternoon's Hartford Courant on-line about the strong voter turnout expected in Connecticut this coming Tuesday -

Connecticut officials believe turnout in Tuesday's presidential primary could reach or exceed the record 43 percent turnout seen in the 2006 Senate race.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz says more than 24,000 people have registered to vote since Nov. 1. More than 11,000 are Democrats and nearly 5,000 registered Republican.

Bysiewicz says more than 8,000 unaffiliated voters have registered since Nov. 1. Unaffiliated voters have until Monday to choose a party if they want to vote in a primary.

•  Don't Tip

  just affiliate and vote!

  by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM PDT

  •  I tipped because I switched

    I really wanted to vote for Edwards :( so I guess I will be voting for Obama.

    by pgm 01 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:05:24 PM PDT

    •  PGM

      I understand you are saying you switched from planning on a vote for Edwards to Obama (because Edwards suspended his campaign today).

      My diary is talking about something a little different - I'm talking about actual voter registration, not about what candidate you are planning to vote for.

      I hope you are affiliated on your voter registration card as a Democrat, if you wish to vote for Obama on Tuesday in Connecticut.

      If you are registered as unaffiliated, you won't be allowed to vote at all on Tuesday in Connecticut.

      by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM PDT

      •  No, I switched from Unaffiliated

        to Democrat so that I could vote for Edwards. Sorry if that was unclear!  All you have to do is fill out the same voter registration form that you would fill out to register, and mark the check box for changing party affiliation.  The same form is also used for change of address.

        by pgm 01 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM PDT

•  Good information to know

  I'm a Californian which has an open Dem. primary, but thanks for getting the information out there for CN voters.

  by CeeusBeeus on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM PDT

  •  CT

    the abbreviation is CT

    by Lilipons on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:50:33 PM PDT

    •  Doh - Of course...now I feel stoopid

      I have no idea how I let this slip. yikes. :)

      by CeeusBeeus on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:40:52 PM PDT

  •  Every State Has Different Rules

    regarding registration and enrollment.

    Wherever you live, you should check out the rules on-line, by phone, or in person.

    by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM PDT

•  You seem to be reinforcing

  the idea that Obama can not win without independents.

  by Lilipons on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:53:31 PM PDT

  •  Are you reinforcing the idea that

    the Democratic party doesn't want to register more members?

    by ManahManah on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM PDT

    •  The Numbers of Democrats

      voting in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina so far this year have been extraordinary!

      I hope that February 5 will continue that trend and I hope that every person knows that their vote is important and valuable.

      by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:59:56 PM PDT

  •  Not at All

    I have had conversations with several unaffiliated voters in my community who thought, mistakenly, that they'd "missed the boat" on this primary.

    We're all awakening to the fact that for the first time in a long time each state is going to count in this primary race.

    It occurred to me that I could get some information out that people might not know.

    Everything isn't spin or manipulation in life, you know?!

    by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:57:33 PM PDT

    •  Not every state

      ok, yes, I know - Im sounding like a broken record (Im in Michigan).  

      Still the information is good to know.

      by FerrisValyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:10:38 PM PDT

      •  FerrisValyn - I Can Really Appreciate

        that MI and FL voters are smarting over the fact that your delegates will not count at the Democratic Convention in August.

        I read earlier this year about the conflict between your states and the DNC leadership and members on primary date guidelines.

        As a voter in MI, were you aware of this conflict at that time?  If so, what did you think about it?

        All the articles I've read talk about the party point of view.  I've read little about what actual voters thought about what was happening.

        What went wrong, in your opinion?

        by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:34:09 PM PDT

        •  A combination of factors, the biggest being

          IMHO, that certain high factions in this state really want Hillary to win.  Both Governor Granholm and Senator Stabenow are for her, and Debbie Dingell, who was heavily involved in moving the primary foward, also endorsed her.  

          Add to that Levin has always wanted a change in the primaries, and you have the perfect storm for the leadership in MI to do something that was very stupid.  

          Without the serious backing of Granholm and Stabenow (and various other people who want Hillary) Levin would've never been able to see it happen, because most people saw this was going to happen.  

          The candidates withdrawing their names also made things that much more complex, because instead of it just being the party, all of a sudden a lot more people got involved (which I think was unexpected by the Clinton backers).  

          Finally, there was the associated court case that went with this, but that never really had a chance of happening, because MI's supreme court is filled with a majority of partisan hacks.  

          So, short version - everyone got want they wanted (Levin wanted the primary moved forward, Granholm and Stabenow and Dingell wanted to deliver the state to Hillary), but no one was happy (our delegates got pulled).

          In short, I blame the MDP, Mark Brewer, Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, and most of the Michigan Democratic party leadership.  I actually don't really blame Hillary, though.  

          And, truth be told, I'd would vote for all of them again (except maybe Mark Brewer - he's the head of the MDP)

          by FerrisValyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:10:11 PM PDT

          •  Thanks for Sharing This.

            You said that

            So, short version - everyone got want they wanted

            .

            It seems so, except that the voters in FL and MI didn't get what they wanted - for their votes to count in the primary.

            Did voters tell the leadership that they were worried their vote would be nullified,as this process was moving forward, or was this a concern that rose after the leadership made their stand?

            What assessment do you make (in terms of benefits to you as a voter) that causes you to say that you'd vote for all of them again?  There must be some benefits that outweigh their actions as you've recounted them.  If not, can you clarify why you'd choose to vote for them again?

            Please don't infer that I'm making any judgement on all of this.  I only vaguely recognize some of the leadership names (Levin, Granholm, and Stabenow) that you've named.  I have no ax to grind.

            by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:35:17 PM PDT

            •  Just because they got what they wanted

              as I said, I don't think the leadership was happy.  I was being a smart ass with that remark.

              There was concern from the leadership over this, I think that can be seen by the last minute hesitations that the state legislature (specifically the House) had when the bill came before them.

              As for voting for them again - the short version - they were the Democrats on the ballot, and they'll most likely be the Democrats on the ballot again.  

              Given a primary challenge, would I consider voting for an alternative?  It would depend on who they were facing, and what issues they differed on.  

              If I may cite a specific example - I was more pissed at Stabenow over the detainee bill (the one that stripped Habeus Corpus) than I have ever been (there was no excuse on that one - she wasn't facing a real challenger in 2006).  But I also knew that there wasn't really a good alternative, IE another party, that I could trust.  My retaliation ultimately consisted of not putting a sign in my yard for her (but I still went door to door for her).  I do hope she gets a primary challenger next time around, if the detainee bill isn't changed before then.  

              Just for clarification

              Carl Levin - MI US Senator
              Jennifer Granholm - MI Governor (she wants to be AG under Hillary)
              Debbie Stabenow - MI US Senator
              Mark Brewer - State Party Chair

              by FerrisValyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:45:54 PM PDT

              •  Do You See Another Court Case

                brought by the state party or voters of the state against the DNC before or during the general election?

                Do you see there being a negative impact on voter turnout in the general election?

                by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:11:21 PM PDT

                •  Well, first

                  lets clarify the original court case - as part of the law that passed that allowed for moving the primary up, it also provided funding for a voter list that would only be accessable to the Democratic and Republicain parties - no one else would have access to that list.  

                  This annoyed a lot of people, and so the law itself was taken to court (in essence, the parties had to defend the law in court).  The law was ruled unconstitution 2 times, until the State Supreme court overturned it.  So in essence, the MDP and MRP got taken to court, not the DNC.

                  As for whether we'll see another court case - It depend on a couple of things

                  1.  Did the state primaries pick a nominee without Florida or Michigan (if the answer is yes, and Florida and Michigan don't change who won it, not only won't there be a court case, I bet the Delegates get seated).

                  2.  If state primaries didn't pick a nominee, and we are going to the convention without a nominee, but the Florida and Michigan results don't put anyone over the top, then I wouldn't be surprized to see a court case, but its not a forgone conclusion

                  3.  If the state primaries didn't pick a nominee, and Obama is ahead of Hillary going into the convention, but Michigan and Florida would give Hillary enough votes for her to win the nomination, I gurantee there WILL be a court case over it.  

                  As for negative impact - well, voters are a fickle thing, it is true.  If there is a court case, and it drags out, it could really hurt us.  

                  On the other hand, does anyone NOT thing the nominee will spend some time (quite possibly serious time) in the states of MI and Florida, given the number of delegates at stake?  I sure as hell don't.  

                  And in that case, will voters overlook the earlier issue of the delegates, because of the issues?  I think they probably would.  This election is going to be all about "the successor to GWB", and that makes it very big, and most people realize that.  I think most people get just how big the next presidency can and will be, given the number of factors coming together (no clear successor for either party, a very unpopular war, all of the fallout from GWB's presidancy), and they'll get over the lost delegates issue.

                  by FerrisValyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:00:11 PM PDT

                  •  Thanks For This FerrisValyn -

                    It is very clear.

                    I had no idea that the original cases were not brought against the DNC.

                    I agree with your points 1-3.

                    All this information points to a very (saying it in the most benign way I can) fluid situation.

                    I hope that all parties involved can settle this with each other as this process unfolds.

                    It would be a shame if the Democratic Party fragmented even as we have the first chance in eight years to unify and begin to address our real problems as a nation.

                    by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:44 PM PDT

                    •  Fluid situation is right, although I prefer

                      the phrase fucked up :D.  

                      All things considered, in a lot of respects, I suspect it probably won't hurt us that much, for 3 reasons

                      1.  Despite the possiblities, a brokered convention is still quite unlikely.  Lets not kid ourselves.  

                      2.  The Republican fragmentation is much more public than the Democratic fragmentation.   The McCain vs Romney wars are down right brutal right now

                      3.  How often has the primary actually lasted beyond the first few states?  Not often.  So in a lot of respects, this is just a continuation of that, IMHO.

                      by FerrisValyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:42:55 AM PDT

        •  As a voter in MI our delegates

          better not be counted. This has made for very hard feelings on so many levels.

          Yes we want our voices heard and it was set up so our voices were muted.

          In addition to the top state Dems noted ex Gov Blanchard rallied for Clinton. At their rallies they stressed she was the only one who stood up for us but we could vote for any name on the ballot. When Undecided was brought up of course they spoke against that option but at least Blanchard went further saying to vote for a name on the ballot or don't vote.

          Let our voices be heard? On the ballot was a space for Write in Candidate with instructions how to use the option. It did warn not to write in a name already printed on the ballot or the ballot would be spoiled.

          It did not tell people that only candidates registered as uncommitted would count nor list any registered candidates. (There weren't any)

          In my county alone there were over 600 spoiled ballots due to write in votes that don't count. I can't imagine (or find) how many were spoiled by a write in for Obama or Edwards in larger counties. If they were counted Clinton's "win" would likely not even be a majority.

          Since they like to use Jesse Jackson comparison in 1988 Jackson got 53.5% compared to 29.0% for Dukakis.

          After the election the governor began to say our delegates will be seated because Clinton cares about MI. The gov is term limited by the way and can't run again.

          In Florida there was a pretty good turn out. A property tax cut was on the ballot.

          These delegates should have no part in determining the nominee. If they are "seated" after the nominee is determined that's another matter.

          by joynow on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:03:54 PM PDT

          •  Your Perspective is Different

            than one I'd expect from a MI voter!

            I'm glad you commented.

            I'm not clear on this -

            It did not tell people that only candidates registered as uncommitted would count nor list any registered candidates. (There weren't any)

            Did the candidates other than Clinton and Kucinich register as "uncommitted?"

            Are you saying your options were only to write in Clinton and Kucinich or uncommitted, and if you wrote in any other candidate's name, you're ballot was rejected?

            by Patricia Taylor on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:39:12 PM PDT

            •  I wrote thast wrong. Should have said

              It did not tell people that only candidates registered as write in would count nor list any registered candidates. (There weren't any)

              The Democratic ballot had 6 choices:
              Hillary Clinton
              Christopher Dodd
              Mike Gravel
              Dennis Kucinich
              Uncommitted
              Write-in

              Despite the space for write-in there were no registered write in candidates.
              If you wrote-in any name the ballot was accepted by the machine but none was counted, it was considered a spoiled ballot.

              Hope that's clearer

              by joynow on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:04:29 AM PDT

              •  It's A LOT Clearer!

                Thanks.

                by Patricia Taylor on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

•  Thanks Patricia

  My daughter and I will do that tomorrow.

  by vbdietz on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM PDT