"Steering" at the polling booth

[iris lilies]

Today was voting day and the nice little ladies working the polling place cheerfully asked me if I wanted the Democratic or Republican ballot, but I wanted neither one of those. There were other options. Too bad they felt compelled to steer me toward the mainstream.

It's no wonder the two party system remains invincible. And these ladies have interest in keeping it that way since in this city, their party will not be defeated by Republicans.

[bae]

At least you get to go to the polls. We eliminated those around here a few years ago, now it is all done by mail. I think we lost a lot with that.

[Float On]

I really don't like being defined by a party. There were people on 4 of the 5 ballot options I would of loved to vote for but darn it you can only pick one.

[bae]

I really don't like being defined by a party. There were people on 4 of the 5 ballot options I would of loved to vote for but darn it you can only pick one.

I wish we would go to an instant-runoff voting system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[iris lilies]

DH came home from his stint as election judge and confirmed that there was wording that the little ladies should have used, not "do you want Dem or Repub ballot?" but "of the 6 ballots, which would you like to have?" And of course this is happening all over this city, all over this state, all over this country. Practicing for the general election when it will really count, they are.

But where is HuffPo to report on this unethical behavior? Where is DaileyKos to blow it up all out of proportion? Rachel Maddow, will you get rabidly angry about this travesty of justice? I think we all know where they are, sitting in their comfy chairs not giving a damn.

There is only 1 more election before I no longer have to punch a time clock. After that one, watch out City of St. Louis! I'm going to sign up to be a poll watcher. Rather than typing on an internet website like this one, I'll take real action to combat this dishonest crap. Understand that I don't think that the little ladies themselves are being dishonest, I think they are ignorant. They've been been encouraged to be ignorant, and they are rewarded for being ignorant by the city's Democratic machine. It's essential to the city's binary election system.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I really don't like being defined by a party. There were people on 4 of the 5 ballot options I would of loved to vote for but darn it you can only pick one.This has been a very funky year for me in some ways. One of these ways is that I myself no longer like being defined by a political party - had you told me a year ago I'd feel this way I would not have believed you......Rob

[peggy]

DH came home from his stint as election judge and confirmed that there was wording that the little ladies should have used, not "do you want Dem or Repub ballot?" but "of the 6 ballots, which would you like to have?" And of course this is happening all over this city, all over this state, all over this country. Practicing for the general election when it will really count, they are.

But where is HuffPo to report on this unethical behavior? Where is DaileyKos to blow it up all out of proportion? Rachel Maddow, will you get rabidly angry about this travesty of justice? I think we all know where they are, sitting in their comfy chairs not giving a damn.

There is only 1 more election before I no longer have to punch a time clock. After that one, watch out City of St. Louis! I'm going to sign up to be a poll watcher. Rather than typing on an internet website like this one, I'll take real action to combat this dishonest crap. Understand that I don't think that the little ladies themselves are being dishonest, I think they are ignorant. They've been been encouraged to be ignorant, and they are rewarded for being ignorant by the city's Democratic machine. It's essential to the city's binary election system.

The DEMOCRATS are responsible! Really? Because these little old ladies offered you a choice of one of the two major parties that MOST people kinda go with? That's dishonest? Wow! Who knew? Cause you obviously didn't know there were more than two ballots...or, wait, you did know. As did ANYONE else who actually bothered to look at the sample ballot and give 5 minutes thought to the issues. But I'm thinking you're steaming about something else, cause really IL, there really isn't a there there. ;)
Frankly I want to blame the republicans for cancelling out most of my votes...on the amendments that is. But that goes back to that '5 minutes thought' thing.

I'm wondering why so many looked at amendment one and said, 'yeah, people are trying to keep ME from farming so here I go!" I got these ten acres...I got this plow, but THEY are trying to STOP me. Cause, you know...I have every right to cram all the little doggies into a cage I can and now it's going to be in the constitution! Just try and stop me from putting in my 5000 hog operation in now. Just try to regulate that!

OK, I'm ranting. It's just, how could so many vote for a thing without thinking why? Right to FArm my ass. It's more like the right to do whatever I damn well please without any accountability or repercussions.

[Alan]

OK, I'm ranting. It's just, how could so many vote for a thing without thinking why? Right to FArm my ass. It's more like the right to do whatever I damn well please without any accountability or repercussions.
That reminds me of my very favorite PJ O'Rourke quote "There is only one basic human right,the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

I'm guessing that the amendment in question fits into that somewhere.

[Tiam]

Today was voting day and the nice little ladies working the polling place cheerfully asked me if I wanted the Democratic or Republican ballot, but I wanted neither one of those. There were other options. Too bad they felt compelled to steer me toward the mainstream.

It's no wonder the two party system remains invincible. And these ladies have interest in keeping it that way since in this city, their party will not be defeated by Republicans.

Huh? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It seems as part of proper procedures and training they should be trained not to steer at all. It's a proper procedures thing. Think of it as almost akin to basic fairness in a game in degree of importance. A major political issue? No, but something can be of very small importance on the scale of things and still deserve to be done right. The main thing that props up the 2 party system? The main thing that props that up is probably the very math of how elections are currently setup :\ ("winner take all" and so on. Maybe it wouldn't happen in a proportional system etc. but we don't have that etc.). Plus the two parties absolutely exclude 3rd parties from things like the presidential debate etc.. - so there's also deliberate rigging. 2 party biased poll workers are not covered by the mainstream media? I take it for granted much won't be. Do they for instance cover the potential for electronic hacking of votes and the need for a paper trail? More important than "steering" since it enables not just subtly influencing votes but outright stealing them!


Because these little old ladies offered you a choice of one of the two major parties that MOST people kinda go with? That's dishonest? Wow! Who knew? Cause you obviously didn't know there were more than two ballots...or, wait, you did know. As did ANYONE else who actually bothered to look at the sample ballot and give 5 minutes thought to the issues.

I doubt anyone thinks they meant harm, just a matter of getting or not getting proper training. But the focus solely on what people consciously know (they know of the existence of more than 2 parties for instance) isn't accurate either, actual human behavior can be influenced by less conscious things like "steering" (psychological priming - I'd be amazed if this exact psyche experiment hasn't been done - certainly most priming experiments tread similar ground, peer pressure etc. - a whole level of provable non-conscious motivation). Do I think it's the main thing enforcing the 2 party system? No again, it's probably this form of "democratic" voting that leads to it and so the form of democracy would have to change probably.

And around here - well 3rd parties are never on the general elections in this whole state due to "open primaries". That is what I would call the 2 major parties rigging the system - they won. You can't even register a protest vote most of the time in the general election, the only protest vote is to leave it blank.

[peggy]

That reminds me of my very favorite PJ O'Rourke quote "There is only one basic human right,the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

I'm guessing that the amendment in question fits into that somewhere.

It does. Actually this amendment was a response from the puppy mill folks who took exception to the voters saying last time that maybe they should follow some regulations. I'm guessing this is why IL is a bit upset, as well she should be. So these folks want it in the constitution that they have a RIGHT to 'farm', i.e. puppy mills, to make it harder for the people of Missouri to regulate their 'farming' practices. Unfortunately this opens the door for all sorts of 'farming' such as huge hog farms and such, who will now have it in the constitution that they have this 'right' to do whatever they need to do to 'farm' with little regard to the folks who might be downhill from them. Or rather their water wells or ponds or wetlands, whatever, downhill from them. The folks who don't have it in the constitution a 'right' to clean water or air or whatever.
It just saddens me to see so many who only see this very misleading title 'The Right to Farm' without actually thinking about it. They don't think that maybe the ONLY people who are having their 'farming' limited are those who we WANT to limit, or at least regulate. We being the majority of the citizen of that state or county.
Everyone likes bacon. But it comes with a cost, and we the citizens need to understand that cost and say, definitely, at what cost.

The same goes for puppies. I know IL is very concerned about puppy mills as she works closely with rescues. I'm guessing she is just frustrated with this 'work around' that the puppy mills have tricked the Missouri voters with. Calling it 'Right to Farm' sucked in those who only look at the title and don't bother to actually think about it.

I'm sorry IL. I know this was important to you. We can still fix this. It won't be easy but we can.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The issues are entirely unrelated. But at least I knew what IL was talking about as it was explained in the post. The "right to farm" thing I had to search. Then I wasn't sure what state it was about, as apparently almost every state has a so called "right to farm" law according to one website, maybe none of them are any good, but I'm betting they probably vary a lot depending on the state even if they are all named that.

I could just as well say puppy mills are a pretty unimportant concern when people are dying in wars in the middle east and with a great deal of justification for saying so as those are human beings (and in fact that actually is my prioritization). But the issues are pretty much 100% unrelated. Just like puppy mills and poorly trained poll workers.

[wars plural - well the u.s. is bombing iraq again now - so war with iraq #3 has started]

[Alan]

It does. Actually this amendment was a response from the puppy mill folks who took exception to the voters saying last time that maybe they should follow some regulations.
Funny, after researching for a bit I came away with the impression that while previous legislation regarding puppy mills was a factor in the amendment, the "puppy mill folks" didn't have anything to do with it. After reading accounts from the New York Times, NPR and Mid Missouri Public Radio it seems to me that farmers and ranchers were concerned about the possibility of language in the puppy mill legislation limiting breeders to 50 animals being applied to farmers/ranchers, limiting their livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep, horses, etc., as well, although no reference to that seems to be in the actual wording of the amendment:


Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri's economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri's economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.

[peggy]

Funny, after researching for a bit I came away with the impression that while previous legislation regarding puppy mills was a factor in the amendment, the "puppy mill folks" didn't have anything to do with it. After reading accounts from the New York Times, NPR and Mid Missouri Public Radio it seems to me that farmers and ranchers were concerned about the possibility of language in the puppy mill legislation limiting breeders to 50 animals being applied to farmers/ranchers, limiting their livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep, horses, etc., as well, although no reference to that seems to be in the actual wording of the amendment:

Well, that's what they said, but if you dig a bit further you would have seen that actual, real small/family farmers were against this. If you noticed who was behind this amendment, Monsanto..Republicans, you get an idea of the real intent. With all due respect, neither have a track record of looking out/caring for the average/little guy.
This is what it's really protecting. Huge hog productions in my/your neighborhood with little protections for the neighbors.

http://www.wthr.com/story/26102935/2014/07/24/judge-rules-indiana-hog-farms-protected-by-law

Unfortunately I don't have a constitutional 'right' to a 10 mile buffer zone from them. And of course allowing this 'right' to be in the constitution will open the door to all sorts of "farming' that might not be beneficial to neighbors and children and other living things.

But then again, follow the money. It's big ag getting politicians to put in the peoples constitution their wishes, trampling all over real family farmers who generally are good neighbors.
And of course the ones who voted for it will be like..."Hey, wait. I didn't mean MY neighborhood!"

[Alan]

Well Peg, look on the bright side. If you want to farm your land, barring zoning restrictions or other limitations, no special interest groups will be able to stop you. Not even those nasty Republicans. ;)

[iris lilies]

Huh? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.

You don't have to see it, of course, but if someone who likes the Libertarian message or the Green Party message might like one of those ballots but doesn't know enough to ask for it, they won't get it. Because they have been "steered" to the mainstream choices. "Only two choices" is the subtext of the little ladies' message.

And for other posters, the little ladies were trained, they chose not to internalize their training and carry out their duties as assigned. Our polls are run by average citizens and this is the sort of thing that is typical. Humans are not perfect and I'll bet there are multiple ethical and perhaps legal violations in each polling place across America. I won't march on Washington about it, but I do think it can be improved.

[iris lilies]

...
The same goes for puppies. I know IL is very concerned about puppy mills as she works closely with rescues. I'm guessing she is just frustrated with this 'work around' that the puppy mills have tricked the Missouri voters with. Calling it 'Right to Farm' sucked in those who only look at the title and don't bother to actually think about it.

I'm sorry IL. I know this was important to you. We can still fix this. It won't be easy but we can.

peggy that is a whole lotta projection onto me, iris lily. This post was about the tricks of a particular party, not about amendments. :)

I actually voted against all of the amendments because I think that's a stupid way to legislate.

[bae]

My state, Washington, is a "right to farm" state, and that has been essential in keeping suburban/urban refugees into our rural lands from shutting down agriculture and forestry operations with nuisance lawsuits and hairshirt environmentalism. Most of our counties have adopted similar legistlation to further protect food and timber production.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48.305

[Alan]

And for other posters, the little ladies were trained, they chose not to internalize their training and carry out their duties as assigned.
I wonder what type of training they get? During the 2012 Presidential election, one of our local "little lady" polling volunteers managed to vote seven times. Once in her name and 6 times as other people. Of course, she said that the person she voted all those times for really deserved to be President so there was no problem with it, right??

Seems she was convicted of voter fraud anyway, but earlier this year she was honored by the Reverend Al Sharpton and a host of local Democratic Party officials. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/03/21/democrats-convicted-poll-worker-hero/6712981/

Really...you can't make this stuff up!

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well Peg, look on the bright side. If you want to farm your land, barring zoning restrictions or other limitations, no special interest groups will be able to stop you. Not even those nasty Republicans.

well pretty much ALL urban farming will fall under zoning ristrictions. So that's what you call a loop hole big enough for a 747. And so long as your field doesn't accidentally get contaminated by monstanto seeds ...

[Alan]

well pretty much ALL urban farming will fall under zoning ristrictions.
I don't think Peg is in an urban area. Neither is 90% of Missouri.

[peggy]

peggy that is a whole lotta projection onto me, iris lily. This post was about the tricks of a particular party, not about amendments. :)

I actually voted against all of the amendments because I think that's a stupid way to legislate.

Actually I was really just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt hoping this wasn't just one of those Fox-type rants against 'those evil democrats and their godless, trickery born of Saul Alinsky tactics cause, you know, Benghazi..." Guess I was wrong.
My bad for assuming that anyone who chooses to follow the green or libertarian parties, (parties you actually have to choose to follow unlike simply going along with the in one ear out the other dogma of the republican party) you would have enough grey cells to ASK for your ballot and to know you can actually VOTE for your party. Neither one of these parties have their own network to feed them BS all day long in a mind numbing string of idiotic accusations and phony scandals to dull their thinking capabilities. If these folks choose these parties to follow and managed to come out to vote, I can pretty much guarantee you they don't need anyone to 'steer' them away.>8) Did you ever think that maybe these ladies were actually Libertarians who wanted to make damn sure only thinking people voted in their party? ;)

98% of the people vote either democratic or republican yet these ladies are evil plotting democrats for offering these two ballots initially?
Must be Obamacare...
Or benghazi.

[iris lilies]

...My bad for assuming that anyone who chooses to follow the green or libertarian parties..you would have enough grey cells to ASK for your ballot and to know you can actually VOTE for your party....If these folks choose these parties to follow and managed to come out to vote, I can pretty much guarantee you they don't need anyone to 'steer' them away.>8)

bolding mine. No, you are wrong. Anyone who is exploring something outside of the 2 party system does, in fact, need to be shown it exists as a choice in the primary election. There is lots of interest these days in libertarian ideals if not the actual party.


Did you ever think that maybe these ladies were actually Libertarians who wanted to make damn sure only thinking people voted in their party? ;)

Why no, I didn't entertain that possibility, hmmm. And now, after thinking it over, I entertained and rejected it, but thanks for that idea!


98% of the people vote either democratic or republican yet these ladies are evil plotting democrats for offering these two ballots initially?

They are not evil, and they hardly plotted. They were ignorant and their party bosses were the plotters.

[Gregg]

Did you ever think that maybe these ladies were actually Libertarians who wanted to make damn sure only thinking people voted in their party?

Unfortunately, if we limit voting to thinking people we'd have a pretty low voter turnout. JMO.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It should be done (asking which of 6 ballots they want) for the same reason you randomize the order of the names on the ballot and they do. But, would perfectly rational people be swayed by the mere order of the names on the ballot? No. And this perfectly rational humanity you are looking for doesn't exist. But I don't necessarily believe small stuff could overcome strong conviction (you walk into the polls determined to vote for a 3rd party come heck or high water), it's more human behavior often takes place in a much grayer area.

[iris lilies]

I am ressurecting this thread because once again, in today’s primary election, the poll workers steered me to their choice: Democratic ballot.

When I came into the voting room I checked in with them, gave them my photo I.D which they used to locate my voting record. All good, I signed the form.

And then they chose my ballot for me, initialed it as they are supposed to do, and pushed it towards me on the table. I was ready to vote! Only, oops— they pushed the Democratic ballot towards me. I looked at them in a quizzical way. That gave them the cue to ask which ballot i wanted. Doh, not the Democratic Party ballot, people.

[JaneV2.0]

I would be thrilled if we all went to mail-in ballots. So simple.

ETA: Oregon and Washington are mail-only, and I think California is heading that way.

[Teacher Terry]

I hate all the unethical stuff by any party!

[jp1]

Without knowing what's on your ballot today I'm curious, would steering you to a democratic ballot actually alter the results potentially? If it's a primary and you either have a choice of a ballot with all democrats or a ballot with all republicans it wouldn't seem to make any difference. If that's the case then you probably just got stereotyped as "old white lady still living in the hood instead of in a west county suburb, must be a democrat." Or even "someone living in the hood, statistically she's likely to be a democrat"

[iris lilies]

Without knowing what's on your ballot today I'm curious, would steering you to a democratic ballot actually alter the results potentially? If it's a primary and you either have a choice of a ballot with all democrats or a ballot with all republicans it wouldn't seem to make any difference. If that's the case then you probably just got stereotyped as "old white lady still living in the hood instead of in a west county suburb, must be a democrat." Or even "someone living in the hood, statistically she's likely to be a democrat"
Yes it makes a difference! Are you kidding? I want my candidate on the Republican ballot to get my vote, there were many candidates in this primary. I do not even understand your comment, and besides, there were more ballots than Dem and Repub.

I guarantee that voters who are unsure, lack confidence, or are new to the game might not challenge the people behind the table. I GUARANTEE that my candidate lost at least one vote in this city due to this “steering” problem. I also fuarantee that the
Libertarians and the Greenies and etc. lost votes due to the steering. Votes cast at elections determine a host of issues for these parties.

DH, who is an election judge, said that the “steering” is wrong, there is verbiage the poll workers should say.

[Teacher Terry]

I wish there was one ballot with the choices. I think different ballots are confusing.

[jp1]

I guess i also don’t understand your comment. Unless poll worker knows that candidate A is popular amongst a certain particular demographic of republicans and wants to steer that demographic elsewhere what benefit does the poll worker have in giving out democrat ballots to republicans? At the end of the day the republican primary is voted on entirely by republicans. Steering one, or 100, or 1000, to the democratic ballot isnt likely to change the republican primary results. Unless the poll worker knows that all the old republicans like candidate A and all the young ones like candidate B or some other easily identifiable trend amongst republicans it seems like steering republicans to democratic ballots would favor all the republican candidates equally.

Considering how rarely poll workers work polls it seems far more likely that you had a random poll worker who made a mistake.

[jp1]

I wish there was one ballot with the choices. I think different ballots are confusing.

You should move to california. With the exception of president that’s what we have.

[Teacher Terry]

Everyone from California is moving here:))

[LDAHL]

Personally, I don’t think our current system of open primaries serves us all that well. Look at the choices they produced in 2016. I’m not sure smoked filled rooms wouldn’t have produced better results.

[iris lilies]

I guess i also don’t understand your comment. Unless poll worker knows that candidate A is popular amongst a certain particular demographic of republicans and wants to steer that demographic elsewhere what benefit does the poll worker have in giving out democrat ballots to republicans? At the end of the day the republican primary is voted on entirely by republicans. Steering one, or 100, or 1000, to the democratic ballot isnt likely to change the republican primary results. Unless the poll worker knows that all the old republicans like candidate A and all the young ones like candidate B or some other easily identifiable trend amongst republicans it seems like steering republicans to democratic ballots would favor all the republican candidates equally.

Considering how rarely poll workers work polls it seems far more likely that you had a random poll worker who made a mistake.

Your logic and your facts are wrong.

First of all, my state is an open primary state, so “ the Republican primary is voted on entirely by Republicans” is not a true statement since anyone of any political affiliation can infiltrate the Republicans. And I am fine with this actually, I just want these infiltrators to do it consciously.

Secondly, There is NEVER a downside for the steering lying unethical poll workers who are, of course Democrats, to hand out Democratic ballots. Edited to add: never a downside for THEM.

The more ballots cast on the Democratic side, the more advantages that party earns under state election laws. I cannot remember the complex formula our state uses for handing out perks, but if I run across that info later I will post it. Third party candidates come into these primaries at a severe handcap due to these laws and it is made worse by steering at rhe ballot box.

Thirdly, OF COURSE it freekin matters in the end, a few votes OFTEN determine an election. You sound as though you are talking only about a Presidential election and only two parties count. In reality, hundreds of elections across the country are affected by a handful of votes. We have one from yesterday where a candidate lost by 4 votes and there was irregularity at the polling place that may well have flipped that election, somethng as simplei as the polling place opening an hour late.

When you say “it seems far more likely that you had a random poll worker who made a mistake” I say, well, sorta. Certainly that poll worker wasnt targeting me personally, but she was tagging each voter throughout the day with her lazy assumption that everyone wants a Democratic ballot. A few of those voters would have to challenge her on it, and some people are just not brave/sophisticated/mature/knowledgeable enough to do that.

[JaneV2.0]

Handing out an inappropriate ballot would seem like a minor infraction next to gerrymandering, voter suppression, voting machine hacking, and other common malfeasance.

[Teacher Terry]

Here our primaries are closed which I don’t think is right. I don’t vote straight democrat and my husband doesn’t vote straight republican. People need to be able to vote for the person that they think is best.

[iris lilies]

Handing out an inappropriate ballot would seem like a minor infraction next to gerrymandering, voter suppression, voting machine hacking, and other common malfeasance.

One ballot IS minor. Multiply it by the 200+ votes at that precinct. Then multiply by hundreds of precincts in my city. It is the slow erosion of an honest election. When each Democratic worker does this for their party, they are, well, doing it for their party, doing it for their team.
Every bit Helps.

This IS a form of voter supression.

[Teacher Terry]

Republicans are not going to vote democrat because they were handed the wrong ballot. They are going to ask for the correct ballot.

[iris lilies]

Republicans are not going to vote democrat because they were handed the wrong ballot. They are going to ask for the correct ballot.
Yes, my people are generally not that weak and ineffective! You got that right. I am thinking more of people who are on the fence or who would like to vote for a Republican candidate, even for the wrong* reason.

But those exploring Libertarian or even Greenie alternatives might be more tentative in challanging the status quo.


* wrong reason is to elect a stalking horse candidate to run against your favorite candidate.

[jp1]

Your logic and your facts are wrong.

First of all, my state is an open primary state, so “ the Republican primary is voted on entirely by Republicans” is not a true statement since anyone of any political affiliation can infiltrate the Republicans. And I am fine with this actually, I just want these infiltrators to do it consciously.

Secondly, There is NEVER a downside for the steering lying unethical poll workers who are, of course Democrats, to hand out Democratic ballots. Edited to add: never a downside for THEM.

The more ballots cast on the Democratic side, the more advantages that party earns under state election laws. I cannot remember the complex formula our state uses for handing out perks, but if I run across that info later I will post it. Third party candidates come into these primaries at a severe handcap due to these laws and it is made worse by steering at rhe ballot box.

Thirdly, OF COURSE it freekin matters in the end, a few votes OFTEN determine an election. You sound as though you are talking only about a Presidential election and only two parties count. In reality, hundreds of elections across the country are affected by a handful of votes. We have one from yesterday where a candidate lost by 4 votes and there was irregularity at the polling place that may well have flipped that election, somethng as simplei as the polling place opening an hour late.

When you say “it seems far more likely that you had a random poll worker who made a mistake” I say, well, sorta. Certainly that poll worker wasnt targeting me personally, but she was tagging each voter throughout the day with her lazy assumption that everyone wants a Democratic ballot. A few of those voters would have to challenge her on it, and some people are just not brave/sophisticated/mature/knowledgeable enough to do that.

Ok, now that I've got more info I agree. I didn't know that MO was an open primary state. But I agree with the previous poster who commented that surely most people who are given the wrong ballot would speak up. If they don't it's on them for being such a wimp or too stoopid to realize what has happened.

I'm reminded of my mother. Growing up she and Dad NEVER went to vote together. Sometimes pointedly. At some point in my 20's I asked what was up with that. The story mom told was remarkable. At least when viewed from a 1990's perspective. Right after they married (mid-50's) they went to vote at the same time. Dad presented himself and was sent to a booth to vote. Then mom presented herself and the pollworker woman, looking through the democrat registration book said "I can't find your name" Mom said, "that's because he's a democrat and I'm registered republican" Poll worker shouts to dad, in the voting booth, "What's a matter!? Can't you keep her in line??? HAHAHA" Being a civilized woman mom somehow managed to contain her emotions and not to get arrested for punching the stupid b****. But for the rest of their lives my parents never went to vote at the same time again.

[iris lilies]

Jp, great story about your mom! Haha, good woman there.