Irony: Independent Voters Tell Me That They Will Vote Green/Jill Stein in Protest of the Democrats "Disenfranchising" Them

Sanders and his supporters have been complaining that it is voter disenfranchisement to have closed primaries. They show up not having looked up the voting information even though it's on Sanders' site for easy reference, and they get turned away because they aren't Democrats.

So they deploy the word that is used to denote that some people are disallowed to vote in all government elections due to legal restrictions or deliberately placed obstacles like long lines only in minority districts, in violation of the rights guaranteed to them by the US Constitution and SCOTUS decisions. They pretend that a political party wanting to avoid troll votes is the same thing as requiring a form of ID that is difficult for poor (especially rural, elderly, disabled, or female) people to obtain, the same thing as disallowing out-of-town-college students to register at their dorm, knowing that they can't vote at home*. After all, if we put it that way we're supposed to be OUTRAGED!!!1!!11!!!!1!!RAWR on their behalf!

Those things are not equal.

Yeah, it's the party that doesn't have its shit together. OK then.

I'm pretty sure Lana went
to McKinley. Go Panthers.

Think of it this way: postulate that I am a high school student attending Broadmoor High. I have a lot of friends who go to McKinley High, including someone who is running for Student Body President and who I admire to the point of adoration. So I show up at McKinley High to vote in their Student Body election, with the intention of voting for my friend. What will happen? 

I will not be allowed on campus unless I have a good enough reason to get a visitor's pass, but even then, I will not be allowed to vote because my name will not be on the student roster, AKA the list of eligible voters. I will be turned away from the polls. Have I been disenfranchised? Nope.

Now, I know that Sanders supporters would stop me here and say that this is a false equivalence because there will eventually be an election in which they might be able to vote for him. So I'll explain why it's not. 

The Democratic Primary is a series of events to determine who will represent the Democratic party in an upcoming election, who the de facto leader of the Democratic Party would be. If you are not a member of the party, these things do not apply to you, just as they would not apply to me if I tried to vote at the wrong high school. In order for that person to be representing you, you have to be a member of the group that the person represents. Why should non-members have a say in who the de facto leader of the members should be? And why should they have a say in the party platform if they're not in the party? Why do they think that they have the right to vote on the party platform if they won't join the party?

I bet these guys are Freeze Peach proponents. Those guys who change definitions so fairness to everyone is unfair to them are all the same. Color and gender.

Why Do We Have Closed Primaries, Anyway?

Above, I mentioned "troll votes," but what does that mean? That open primaries have a security flaw. Undesirables are allowed to vote any way that they like, including "cross-over voting," in which members of the opposition party vote for the candidate that they think is easiest to beat. This year, Democrats crossed over to vote for the most Democrat-like candidate or so they'd have a chance to vote against Trump. Little did they know.

Some people argue that: 

...The candidates without clear party credentials are advantaged by the vote of independents, and the party faithful can be divided or dissuaded at the time of the general election. 

By this logic, allowing independent voters to select Sanders for the Democratic party could advantage Trump in the general election even if there is no third candidate. (But in the case of Trump, that seems extreme.)

Sanders and his supporters object to closed primaries because they bar Sanders-supporting non-Democrats from voting to determine who represents the Democrats in the election. Allowing them would benefit Sanders but harm the Democrats. Disallowing them is supposedly "disenfranchisement."

What Is Disenfranchisement?

Let's check Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement is also termed to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community or being to the natural amenity they are abound in; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity. Disfranchisement may be accomplished explicitly by law or implicitly through requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion, intimidation, or by placing unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting.

Let's take those emphasized areas one at a time:

1. revocation of the right of suffrage: there is no right to vote in a party primary. Primaries are run by the parties according to party rules and there are no laws that grant a right to vote in an election that selects a party representative. If you are a member of the party in good standing and it is a general vote, you may obtain the privilege to vote in the primary, but you still wouldn't have the privilege to vote in party committee meetings unless you are a member of the committee. Rights are granted by the government, which has nothing to do with a party primary. I have a right to vote, but sadly, not in Congress. That the word "vote" is involved doesn't make something a right.

   

   Cartoon by RJ Matson.

2. prevention of a person exercising the right to vote: again, in a party primary, there is no right to vote, see 1. 
3. to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity: first, the definition of franchise:
   "1 an authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities
   2 the right to vote."
   So it's an authorization given to a group, in this case, to the Democratic Party Members, by the Democratic Party. Are you not a member of the party? Then you are not authorized. And as for definition 2, you still don't have a right to vote in a party primary, see 1. You don't have a right and you do not qualify for the privilege.
4. requirements applied in a discriminatory fashion: the requirements don't discriminate against any marginalized group. The requirements are that if you want to vote in an election run by their party in order to do party business, you have to be in the party. If disallowing independent voters would be disenfranchisement, so would disallowing Republican voters.

   

   Freeze Peach Zone!

5. intimidation: Yeah, I'm sure that the check in volunteers are totally scary and they're telling you that if you are allowed in, you will be harassed and insulted with gendered slurs. LOL Just kidding! That's the Sanders supporters! The intimidation here is against the party, the party volunteers, and female/minority Clinton supporters, not by the party, the party volunteers, or female/minority Clinton supporters. And Sanders supporters sue to try to get their votes counted as though the primary were open (but in a way that doesn't benefit people who bothered to read the rules in advance, of course). That is an intimidation tactic by Sanders supporters, appropriating social justice terminology to pretend that the existence of consequences for registering third party is "discrimination."
6. unreasonable requirements on voters for registration or voting: the requirements are that you have to be a registered voter or citizen who falls under an age exception, who has been verified to be a registered as a member of the group having the primary event. Seems pretty freaking reasonable.

That would be most logical, Captain.
Sincerely,  Bizarro Spock.

In addition to voting on who the candidate will be, some primary events include voting to approve the party platform, as happened in Nevada last week. Should non-members be voting on the policy of the group? I checked my roommate for a goatee and she doesn't have one, so I am apparently not in Bizarro World. I'll go with "no."

Disenfranchisement is a word that means something and what it means is "denying the ability to vote to a person who has a right to vote in that election." It doesn't mean that I can show up at a random high school and vote for my friend, because I don't have a right to vote in elections that don't apply to me. I don't even have a right to vote in the election for my own high school; I had that privilege, but in some schools not every student does.

Don't let her down, people!

And actual disenfranchisement is happening in the US, thanks to the GOP, who will control all 3 branches of government if these anti-Clinton lies and conspiracies push Sanders fans to vote Trump or Stein. We have urban polling locations closing, resulting in hours long lines for racial minorities. We have new voter ID laws that require forms of identification that poor women, elderly people, racial minorities, disabled people, etc. have trouble obtaining. We even have laws that block college students from voting, the best of which disallows university IDs to be used as voter identification but allows NRA membership cards as identification. No ulterior motives there!

Pretending that this is disenfranchisement when disenfranchisement is actually happening to minorities in the US is appalling, but even better, most of the people affected by actual disenfranchisement are in demographics that voted for Clinton.

So... Why Is This Ironic? 

And Do I Mean Actual Ironic or Alanis Morissette Ironic?

I mean actual ironic.

My Friend the Green Party

The elusive pelidactyl.

When I registered to vote in 1990, I went to the registration office and I filled out my application. For my party affiliation, I wrote in "Green." This confused the registration person, who used D, R, or U (unaffiliated). She was skeptical of the existence of a "Green Party" and tried to enter me as U, but I insisted that she enter me as Green. I eventually asked if she could type G into that field and submit to see if it would go through, which it did. Seriously, I caused a ruckus and held up the line and and everything. I was a sweet and insistent nightmare. I think I got a callback to confirm as well. (Apparently, Louisiana now has a Green Party chapter, complete with pterodactyl/pelican hybrid logo. Pelidactyl?)

When I moved to California, I registered to vote at the DMV, where I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Green is an actual option for registration. I registered Green and I receive the party donation requests to prove it.

To sum up, even though for some of the period, I was in a state in which the Green Party did not exist: I have been registered Green since 1990.

I usually tell people that I'm a Democrat because it avoids confusion and I usually vote with them anyway. There aren't a lot of elections with a viable Green candidate or with a Green candidate and an unviable GOP candidate. The person most aligned with my opinion is typically a Democrat because there isn't a green candidate.

2008: Obama vs Clinton

Razzafrazzinetcetera.

In 2008, I gleefully marched to my voting location to select Clinton as the Democratic nominee. And I got turned away because I was registered Green*2. I spent a moment impersonating Yosemite Sam; apologized to the poll worker, saying that I knew that this was my fault, not hers; and grumbled all the way home that I wish that I'd known that side-effect of my registration so I could have changed my party affiliation to vote for her. After walking those two blocks, I granted myself a consolation cocktail and went on with my life.

You see, decisions have consequences: maybe something bad; maybe something good. In this case, I got to have a protest registration, denoting that I believed more strongly in the values of the Green Party than I did in the Democratic Party. What do Greens believe in?

The Green Party of the United States (GPUS or Greens) is a green, left-wing political party in the United States. 

The party, which is the country's fourth-largest by membership, promotes environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, participatory grassroots democracy, gender equality, LGBT rights, and anti-racism.

Pretty awesome, right? With some minor exceptions, these are my strongest political beliefs! The Democrats lean that direction, but Blue Dog and other conservative Democrats don't necessarily believe in equality for everyone.

Tiny protest for democracy!

And yet, my decision to align with the Green Party has negative consequences. I don't get to vote in closed Democratic primaries unless the Green party is explicitly allowed or if "closed" means "Ze-Human Republican Haters Club." I face the same circumstances if I try to shape the Democratic Party platform at a convention. That is the nature of being a third-party registrant. I occasionally consider switching to Dem, but I like my tiny protest. Until now, no one else has seen it, but that tiny protest feels good to me and that matters. If I ever feel that it will be truly required that I vote in a closed primary, I'll switch. 

Don't arm the BernieOrBusters!

My inability to vote in closed Democratic primaries is a consequence of my decision to register Green. To the independents who expected to vote in the Democratic primary but were turned away because it was a closed primary: that is a consequence of your decision-making. Suck it up. That's what I do. Sometimes, you make a decision and shit happens because of it. Welcome to life!

Insisting on changing the primaries to open ones to appease you as a non-member is egotistical, ignorant of the reasons for closed primaries, and insistent that your decisions have no bad consequences. Don't be a spoiled, irresponsible jackass, okay?

My Friend the Protest Vote

In fact, I voted for Ralph Nader while in a deeply red state and Jill Stein while in a deeply blue state, as protest votes. I considered voting for Lessig this year but his platform didn't have the full-bodied aroma that I expect. Those votes didn't change anything: Bush won in the red state landslide; Obama won in the blue state landslide. I proudly voted for Obama in the blue state once as well, also to make a point, if only to myself. 

I think I voted for a viable Green candidate for the SF Board of Supervisors without it being a protest vote. As a long-time Green party member, that's kind of magical.

What Is a Protest Vote Anyway?

A protest vote is a vote that you make not because you believe that the person that you're voting for is the best option, but because you want to make a point. And when I say "the best option," I'm including electability and negative consequence possibilities as a criteria. When I voted for Nader, Gore was my best option; I wanted to make a point that consumer protection is important to me and he was the only one discussing that. When I voted for Jill Stein, Obama was my best option; I wanted to make a point that environmentalism was important to me and she was the only one discussing it.

Feel the Green! Jill Stein Uses Bernie Publicity

Meanwhile, Jill Stein is finally finally getting some media coverage because Bernie or Busters are threatening to vote for her to punish Democrats. And is she using that publicity to talk about the issues that the Green Party stands for, trying to draw in voters on the issues or at least use the publicity to inform people about the party? No. She's using the publicity to play Mean Girl in Clinton's direction. Instead of correcting Sanders' lies about Clinton, she's repeating them and getting publicity because of it. Frankly, it's underhanded and opportunistic. I expect better from the Green Party.

Now I get to be appalled with my party's candidate just like the Republicans!

Let Me Sum Up

I am a registered member of the Green Party who was turned away from a Democratic primary and was fine with that because it was my error, who has protest voted in the past for Jill Stein based on the issues, assuming that people would understand the importance that the issues had to me. 

They are independent (but not Green) voters who were turned away from a Democratic primary and call it discrimination despite it being their error, who are planning to vote for Jill Stein to punish the Democrats for errors made by the voters in question, without realizing that they only agree with her platform when others are looking, assuming that people will understand that their vote indicates vindictiveness "justifiable anger," easily distinguishable from the identical voter profile that chose Stein because of the issues.

So basically, we have encountered the same circumstances but only I took responsibility for my role in them and they falsely claim discrimination. We both protest vote for Stein, but I did it to make a point that was clear and they do it for a reason that's both false and unclear-- and Stein's cynically taking advantage of that. 

And that, my friends, is bullshit.

Coming soon: How to Properly Protest Vote without Being a Jackass

* The hilarious thing is that disallowing college students to vote is actual voter disenfranchisement that can affect millennials, people likely to vote for Sanders, but this actual voter disenfranchisement doesn't matter.

*2 In California, unaffiliated voters and members of approved cross-over parties are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, but Green is not one of them, probably for cantankerousness reasons.

Rant Time: Bernie or Bust Yourself in the Spleen

American Crossroads meme designed for Sanders supporters

Look, we had some primaries. At some point in the process, you've called every form "corrupt." You've faulted Clinton for problems that didn't exist. You've faulted her for problems that were created by Republicans. You've faulted her for having friends that will help her pass her policies through Congress. You have repeated and reposted and reblogged and retweeted old and new sexist propaganda made by the GOP, often without even removing the credit to American Crossroads, Karl Rove's PAC. You have literally been doing Karl Rove's dirty work.

This is precisely what Clinton wants.

You have been tithing Sanders $27/month and insulting Clinton for taking lump sums, but Sanders is the only candidate who has taken excess money that hasn't been returned. You have yelled and screamed and conspiracy theorized until you've decided that there are blocks in Brooklyn that have been disenfranchised that only house Sanders supporters-- because Clinton is a cheater cheater pumpkin pantsuit wearer who identified those blocks in November, back when Sanders wasn't a threat anyway. You shout that Clinton doesn't want to overturn Citizens United, a ruling that allowed an anti-Hillary Republican group to get unlimited funding specifically to attack her. You have pretended that Clinton is unqualified and I'm fairly sure that you at some point assigned to Clinton every negative sexist trope about women that exists in US culture.

The resemblance is uncanny

And you've given Sanders credit for "changing Clinton" even though she hasn't changed stances because of him and even in cases where she's had the stance for decades longer than Sanders-- because when a woman does something, credit goes to the nearest male. She's not even worthy of being on the cover of a movie about her.

TW: misogyny, misogynist slurs, racism, ableism, and a lot of cursing.

You've insulted women, black people, and anyone who merely has different priorities than you. You have called us ignorant. You have mansplained women's needs to us and whitesplained Black people's needs to them. You insulted us for not having problems with things that you had problems with when they benefitted Clinton ("not the will of the people!"), that you insisted that Sanders should use when you thought they would benefit him ("sorta kinda maybe not the will of the people!").

You have, over and over, referenced vaginas to insult women who support Clinton, while simultaneously reminding us that Clinton and we are lesser than you because we have vaginas. You have told us that we are "voting with our vaginas" in response to informed, logical arguments that we state to back our stances, because you can't get past our anatomy long enough to listen.

You've even faulted people for not supporting Sanders "enough," including Elizabeth Warren who for some reason, is required to follow your will instead of her own, as though you are entitled to her for some reason. I wonder why you're entitled to a woman that you don't even know.

You have, for this entire process: insulted, demeaned, denigrated, slurred, attacked, harassed, and berated us. For some reason, we didn't find this convincing and you lost. Strange. I wonder if there's a lesson there (that we told you from the beginning).

When it became clear to you that you lost, you started making demands. Now, in order to appease you, you insist that Clinton change her stance to what her stance has been for 30 years but you still can't be bothered to Google. You demand that she change her stance or you will vote for Trump instead, without mentioning or more likely without realizing that Trump's stance is far worse than Clinton's, by your standards. You want to take this to convention. You need to keep your "ideological purity." You'll write in Sanders' name just to make a point, just to tell us that we can't boss you around even though the only bossing around that we have tried to do is get you to stop trying to boss us around, which obviously, you are entitled to do because you are you.

My vagina votes.

You require that Clinton change her stance; you accept Trump even though his only consistent stance is hatred. It's funny how when your man lost, you decided to vote for the other man even though the woman is in near complete agreement with your man and the other man doesn't actually have a platform for you to agree with but talks far right. Why is that?

You've Made Your Point

You're welcome.

You see, in yet another election, we have one party that is liberal (for the US) and one party that is far right (even for the US). We have a party that supports equal rights and a party that has stated intentions to eliminate equal rights that have been given by the courts to non-whites, non-straights, non-Judeo-Christians, non-masculines, and non-men.

We have two main candidates: a highly qualified woman with a long history of activism for women, children, LGBT people, the poor, and racial minorities; and thin-skinned, spoiled man-child who can't even admit that he's losing his hair, who has insulted liberals, educated people, women, Black people, Hispanics (who are all from Mexico, by the way), Muslims, disabled people, and anyone who can keep a thought in their heads for longer than a goldfish.

You're welcome again.

On one side, we have an accomplished woman who has sent out explicit plans about how she will implement campaign goals on issues on which she has worked for 40 years, who has many friends who will support her in achieving those goals. And on the other side we have a "pasta" candidate: he just throws policy at the wall to sees what sticks and insults anyone who merely reprints his words. He changed his abortion stance 5 times in 3 days. That's not becoming more informed and evolving; that's just not caring that he doesn't have a platform.

We have a woman who has excelled in education, who has worked hard to get where she is, who is one of the most accomplished women in the nation; and we have a literal poster boy for irresponsible waste of inherited money, dirty financial tricks, corporate failure, and fraud, who may as well be hiding a "1%er!" tattoo under his hair flip which requires a yearly upkeep budget approximately that of a small island nation.

So you'll know where to aim.

We have woman who has successfully negotiated deals with leaders of other nations; and a guy who insults foreign leaders and feels compelled to defend the size of his penis on national TV during official campaign events.

And the Stakes are Yuge

Yet again, people's rights are at risk due to this election. The Supreme Court has already decided that everyone is equal now so we don't need equal rights protections anymore, gutting voting ability for minorities, allowing segregation and defunding of minority schools, thumbing their noses at affirmative action, and laughing out loud at the thought of letting women know that they get paid less than their male peers.

This election is not a joke.

But then Scalia died and the GOP took advantage of that to make this election even riskier than usual. They're refusing to allow the President to appoint someone to the Supreme Court so that the next President can, hoping that they will win the election and maintain the previous conservative slant of the court, the slant that thinks that equality is for white dudes and only white dudes. After all, the Founding Fathers said that "all men are created equal" but women aren't men and at the time, neither were black people, so no rights for them! It will be difficult for the Dems to take Congress because of voter suppression issues and partisan jerrymandering, so if we get a Republican president, they will likely control all 3 branches of government-- all while opposing rights for everyone but upper middle class and higher heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied, Judeo-Christian white dudes.

But that's you, so what do you care?

Translation from ASL: I'm a jackass.

And while we have elderly and disabled people denied the ability to vote in any elections even though they are provably citizens, you are screaming about voter disenfranchisement in Connecticut because you had to change from unaffiliated to Democrat too far in advance for some people, even though the deadline for that change was literally the day before the election. That's like me screaming "murder!" because you gently flicked me in the nose-- and quite frankly, I hope that disenfranchised and disembodied murder victims haunt you for this nonsense. That's the true power of the dead vote!

It's Just Not the Point that You Intended

So when you tell me that you can't vote for Clinton because you believe all of the lies and sexist bullshit that you've been spouting for months, that you will vote for Trump because "he's more liberal than Clinton" (for some definition of liberal that is conservative, for some reason) and "better for the country," or that you will write in Sanders' name because of your precious ideological purity, this is what you are telling me:

"I do not give a shit about your rights."

They even fattened her up and slenderized him. #nosexism

You, who have been calling us whores, cunts, and bitches, who have spent the last 5 months insulting us, harassing us, and generally being assholes, have now informed us that you don't give a shit about our rights. And now that you have lost, you demand that we take on your losing platform and kiss your asses because your one vote is just that fucking important, because you are so much more fucking important than the 12.6 million people who voted for Clinton, especially since we're women, black people, and other ignorant motherfuckers who simply don't count as people. You know, those people that the GOP is trying to disenfranchise and won't be able to vote in the next election if you get your way.

Color me completely unsurprised that the people harassing women online for supporting Clinton don't care about women's rights even though they are a core progressive value and the same people are running around the Internet "No True Progressive"ing.

You are stomping your feet and demanding that I give a shit about your opinion. And for some reason you are so convinced that your opinion is more important than my rights that you expect me to agree with that assessment. I'm going to say that again so it might sink in: you believe that your opinion is more important than my rights, more important even than the right for women, poor people, and racial minorities to vote.

But you know what? I don't worship you like you do.

Are you going to vote for Trump because you didn't get your way for once in your life? Are you going to vote for Trump because you have channeled all that you hate about women into Hillary Clinton and can no longer stand your reflection in her? Are you going to vote for Trump because men are always more qualified than women? Are you going to vote for Trump because you want to make things so terrible for people other than you that we will finally "see the light" and join your revolution, that we will "Bern It Down?"

Are you going to write in Sanders' name because you don't care to counter a Trump vote and your "ideological purity" is more important to you than my rights?

Then fuck off.

You are not special.

You are not even a progressive. 

You are not important. 

You are not better than me. 

You don't matter any more than I do. 

And you think that I don't matter, so you must not matter either. 

We are cogs in the machine. 

Get the fuck over yourself.
I'm over you.

Bernie or bust yourself in the spleen.