The traditional primary elections in August include full slates for both parties, and most communities also use that date to hold local nonpartisan elections (town councils, school boards, etc.), propose millages, etc.

Those are legitimate uses of taxpayer dollars.

THIS election on 28 February represents what you're talking about -- taxpayer funds being used to promote the interests of one party, appropriated by a Legislature dominated by that same party and signed into law by a Governor also of that party.

All elections and campaigns should be publicly funded so we can stop politicians from selling us out to the highest bidder.

They can make it public. I don't care. I'm still crossing over to vote in the primary because it is my right to pick the looniest of the looney that the Republicans put on their ballot. .

Which is in fact what Michigan Democrats are doing -- funding their own Caucuses on Saturday, 5 May. The Northville Democratic Club is hosting two of them.

In addition to nominating President Barack Obama for reelection, the caucuses are the first stage in selecting Michigan's delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

I totally agree Frank

They love it when they get to redistribute the wealth up. They call it trickle down. When it gets redistributed down, they class it class warfare. When corporations get tax dollars, they call it capitalism. When people get tax dollars, they call it welfare. Anybody else see a pattern here?

I agree Frank!

"Over 17 states" = 18? Can you name them? Please post where you found this information, so we can all benefit from your sources.

"One or more" = unless your sources say otherwise, I going to assume you mean one/state, with a single state having two? So, a grand total of 19 cases out of how many MILLIONS of ballots cast? Over what time frame -- 2010, 2008, the last ten years?

Can you or your sources name any of the cases, or where they're being tried? Anything would do.

"Voter fraud cases" = So...are we talking actual voter fraud or voter REGISTRATION fraud? There's a big difference between entering "Mickey Mouse" on a voter registration application and having a person actually claim to BE "Mickey Mouse" show up at the polls and try to cast a ballot.

Any evidence to back up your specious claims would do here.

"In their court systems" = If any of these were felony indictments, your source would have said so. Meaning these are all misdemeanor offenses, in which some have likely been thrown out of court and others have resulted in acquittals...right?

"In all but one, the accused are [D]emocrats." And we know this how? Public voting records of the accused? DNC cards in their wallets? Were they wearing blue t-shirts when they were caught?

Bottom line: Lacking proof or evidence, your post is utterly meaningless. And even if it all were true, it'd still represent a TINY FRACTION of the MILLIONS of votes cast.

The only one that I've heard about lately is this one, and it's been in the news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04/charlie-white-voter-fraud_n_1254311.html

Wow, not a poor person or ACORN! An elected official!

Mari and Herb - a few things to share:

2011 saw 19 new voter laws and 2 executive actions passed in 14 states. Analysis from non-partisan public policy & law institute, The Brennan Center for Justice http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012/

I believe these laws were hastily prepared, do not help with the RARE issue of voter fraud, and not well-intentioned in keeping with American Democracy. For example, how does cutting early voting in half cut down on voter fraud?

IMHO, one of the worst new voter laws comes from Florida. Ann McFall, Volusia County Supervisor of Elections and lifelong Republican, was loath to speak out, but felt compelled to speak of her concerns of voter disenfranchisement, administrative nightmares, and anticipated cost overruns due to the new law, at a recent US Senate hearing. (brief and worth reading) http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/12-1-27McFallTestimony.pdf Months ago Mrs. McFall asked for documentation of alleged voter fraud from Governor Scott (R-FL). She is still waiting.

Fox commentator and former prosecutor Megyn Kelly admits that voter fraud is “not exactly overwhelming”. Having to concede that there is no proof of broad based fraud, R Strategists have now notably shifted their talking points to touting “preemptively protecting the sanctity of the vote”. One saying last week “Why wait until there’s a problem?”

Running out of space - more to come -

OK, Part 2 -

All these preemptive strikes against a problem that’s not there, is disenfranchising too many and reaching levels of paranoia -a kind of a “let’s do it them, before they do it to us” mentality. And, there’s always unintended consequences. Last I checked, many of the seniors that don’t have photo ID vote Republican, as do many college students.

Moreover, in the long arc – I feel these laws boomerang to the detriment of those who instituted them (on either side). It invites future ‘tit for tat’ laws and more gerrymandering whenever the other party gets in power. The games go round, and the citizens lose.

I like to win too, but not like this. I feel over and above any preference I may have, I think the more people engaging and voting the better, even if the outcome doesn’t go my way.

If more people had your attitude, Erin, we'd be so much better off as a people. Inistead we have partisan gerrymandering to "lock in" one party's advantage, and voter suppression efforts like the ones you cited that have a far greater impact than any verifiable cases of true "voter fraud" (aside from individual acts of idiocy like the former Indiana Secretary of State, newly-convicted of multiple FELONIES -- how about that, Mari-Ann? And he's a Republican!).

I'd also like to see the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 passed, and an end to anonymous donations and billionaire-funded Super PACs doing all the negative ads so that candidates can pretend to have "clean hands."

""Voter fraud is extremely rare. At the federal level, records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year."

"Today, the success of voter registration drives among minorities and low income people in recent years threatens to expand the base of the Democratic party and tip the balance of power away from the Republicans" "Consequently, the use of baseless voter fraud allegations to remove targeted populations for partisan advantage has become the exclusive domain of Republican party activists."

http://poli375engage.pbworks.com/f/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf

It is not a reduction to "Good vs. Evil" to point out that the Legislature in Lansing -- dominated by Republicans -- passed a bill last year appropriating $10 million in Michigan taxpayer dollars to fund a presidential primary on Tuesday, 28 February. The bill includes the very intrusive clause stating that the declared party affiliations of those voting will be made public. Gov. Rick Snyder signed it into law.

From the beginning, Democrats opposed this bill, and are not taking part in the election. Instead, Michigan Democrats are hosting caucuses all over the state on Saturday, May 5 -- entirely paid for by the Party. At the caucuses, President Obama will be nominated for reelection, but it will also be the first stage in selecting Michigan's slate of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

In order to obscure the plain fact that this election was created solely for the benefit of Republicans -- FYI, by "jumping" ahead of the date assigned by the GOP MIchigan Republicans will lose half their delegate votes at their Convention in Tampa -- Secretary of State Ruth Johnson has had "Democratic Party" ballots printed with just President Obama's name. This, despite having been told of the planned caucuses, and despite knowing that "primary votes" for President Obama won't be counted.

It's not "Good v. Evil" so much as "Right v. Wrong:" Is it right to spend $10 million of our taxes on a closed presidential primary for only one party? You tell me.

Mr . Carr , I agree with you on all points . I believe we all need to try to accept differences and stop this evil if you disagree . Our founding fathers gave us the right to these difference and only we as a people are taking them away .

Thanks Bob! The question was simple and I know what you mean about people going back and forth with their agenda's. I do not think our information should be out there. Otherwise, what is the point in private booths to vote in? We may as well just where t-shirts with the candidates on them. Obviously people want their information private and those who don't are free to share their love of their party. There have been times were I was not happy with my party and voted for the other person. I weigh everything and compare to what I feel is right and then I vote for who I think is best. Most of the time I stick to my party but not always. I just do not think it is anyone's business. I'm vocal enough about what I want to share, I don't need the government to decide for me. I think that if they want to make this info public they should put it on the ballot for a vote. I bet most people shoot it down. There are so many radicals on each side that if I vote against what they do, that I may be afraid of retaliation. There could be intimidation. Are we going to get extra protection? Seriously...what is the point? I'm sure they can get the information they need assembled anonymously. They don't have to disclose my personal information. They can just say 'x' percent of this party voted this way. I get the importance of statistics but do not need my privacy invaded. However, it will not discourage me from voting.

Bob, you are correct that party affiliation has no relevance as to whether or not the policy is a good one or bad one. But if we overwhelmingly agree that it is a bad policy, it becomes completely fair to point out which party is supporting the bad policy, and which is opposing it.

How that parties stand on this particular issue does not indicate whether they are always right or wrong, as no single issue can indicate such a thing, and no party will be right or wrong on every issue. But when there are several related issues, and one party is taking the wrong position on most of them, it begins to paint a larger picture.

This is not the only voting rights issue facing our country today. This policy of publically outing the party identification of individuals voting in the primary works to discourage voter turnout, and so other issues that affect voter turnout are also relevant in order so that we can see the larger picture. One party wants to allow no-reason absentee voting (since the status quo requires voters to have a reason to vote absentee), the other does not. One party wants to have more strict ID requirements, the other does not. We can discuss each of those individual issues and determine what the better policy is, but if it turns out that one party is consistently in the wrong, then there is a larger issue at hand. If there's not a trend, then it's wrong to pretend there is, but if there is, there's nothing wrong in pointing it out.

Tell it to the Republicans who created this fiasco, are paying for it with our tax money, and can't refrain from calling Democrats "libruls" and Obama a Muslim, Socialist, lousy christian, and Hitler. This party of zealots can have and sell my name to as many Republican lists as they want. The more money they waste on me, the less they have to elect ALEC and Mackinac Center tools whose only goal is to demonize, destroy and privatize the public resources we built and paid for with our tax dollars.

This is the reason I am so grateful for "Patch". Finally a chance to infiltrate the homogeneous network of "good old boys" who only talk to each other reinforcing their monolithic points of view and then legislating them down everyone else s' throats. "what goes round, comes round" and "you do reap what you sow"

Facts are not partisan.

Erich - thanks. And, I forgot to emphasize that in a time of heightened rhetoric and a polarized public, this privacy is particularly important.

Voters must feel safe to vote how they truly feel, not feel like they have to first put their decisions through the filter of public judgment.

Some points that I think are being overlooked ... If I remember correctly, making this information in a similar previous open primary was kept secret by the legislature to all but the political parties - a decision that was later overturned in the courts. Historically, parties want this information for GOTV efforts later in the fall. So, there's no real surprise about this process and then making the info public. If Obama wins this year, it would not surprise me one bit to see a similar open primary in 2016 where the info is public ... In addition, I think a distinction needs to be made that simply voting in a party's primary doesn't mean you are a member of that party and it doesn't mean that you're "strategically voting," either (although some might). This election is about choosing who is the POTUS for the next four years and at the end of the day we get to pick from 2 candidates who have the wherewithal to win in November. This Feb. 28 is the only other realistic opportunity to have a say in that process.

Mohammad, you didn't even come close to being "straight". Your statement was, instead, rather twisted. What was suggested was that a group of people calling themselves Republicans, who want to decide who will lead the list of candidates they will put forth on the ballot in November, should themselves pay for the mechanism to make that decision.

By the way, you missed a few things Democrats want you to pay for, like the Centers for Disease Control, the National Guard, the interstate highway system, the air traffic control system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, clean water at Camp Lejeune, the Customs Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Veterans Administration, just to name a few more. Your list reflected such a small part of what it takes to maintain and grow a country. Just thought you might find some solace in seeing some of the OTHER things we pay for in common (unless you are a hedge fund manager or a Koch brother).

Mr Mohammad , I see not one thing in any of these writings that would give you that idea . Maybe you should study the data about advancing of societies . Behavior of sharing, cooperation and compromise have advanced societies more than behavior of selfishness ,warfare, and idealogy . Why are you so selfish and distrusting of those who do not agree with you.

It's a presidential primary for ONE party. The $10 million cost of this election was appropriated from YOUR taxes and mine by a STATE Legislature -- there's your Tenth Amendment right there! -- controlled by that same party, signed into law by a Governor of that same party, and ballots were printed by the Secretary of State -- also of that same party.

The printing of a couple hundred thousand "Democratic Party" ballots was pure mischief on the part of Ruth Johnson, to obfuscate the matter. County clerks will be forced to count these ballots, but they will not be used by the Democratic Party in any way.

Because Michigan Democrats are PAYING FOR THEIR OWN CAUCUSES ON MAY FIFTH! Selecting Delegates to the national conventions is the very definition of an INTERNAL Party matter, and should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

That straight enough for you?

Many of the things you cite aren't PROVIDED by the government, they are REGULATED by the government.

Most of the rest cannot be done by the private sector or the free markets. There's no profit in basic research that can't be immediately patented and commodified. There's no profit in road-building that benefits the population as a whole, except where government raises the funds via taxation and signs contracts with private companies to do the work. Could there be profit in air traffic control? Perhaps, but the airlines would HATE paying what the private ATC companies would charge, and the ATC companies would HATE being held liable for any mistakes they might make (each "mistake" costing a couple hundred lives).

Do tell me which free market firm would take up the burden of objectively and fairly issuing social assistance? How soon until it devolves into workhouses and debtor's prisons, so that those collecting welfare are in fact "working" for it?

Most every one of the "over reaching powers" were voted on by a majority of the elected representatives at that time, signed into law by a President elected by the citizens (via the Constitutionally-decreed Electoral College) -- and often was upheld by the Supreme Court. That sais, states can and do impose themselves on their citizens in myriad ways -- your Tenther assertion is no panacea.

Too bad Galt's Gulch is fictional; you'd love it there.