Important Primary Election Information


Hoboken411 reader Brian_G thought it would be useful for all of you to be aware of the change in voting rules in New Jersey. While it doesn’t affect Independents, it can have significant impact on those wishing to change party affiliation. You have less than three weeks to take care of it, if necessary. Read on:

He said:

“I did some investigation regarding voting in the NJ primary elections for President.

Since a lot of New Jersey voters have never voted in a primary because it used to be in the first week in June, which was well past when the candidates were selected, I think some may find this information useful.

hoboken nj primary presidential election 2008 - Important Primary Election InformationNew Jersey’s primary election is February 5th 2008.

In order to vote in the primaries you MUST be a declared member of the party of the primary you wish to vote in.

New Jersey no longer recognizes Independent as a political status. If you were declared as Independent you are now considered Undeclared. If you are Undeclared you may declare at your district voting station on the day of the election.

This is pretty important. If you have already declared for a political party and wish to change your affiliation you MUST file a Change of Party Affiliation Form and the paperwork must be received by the local Commissioner of Elections no later than December 17th. If you are unsure of your political affiliation you can call 1-877-NJVOTER and find out .

You may find the form and other information here…

You may also like...

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Friday, February 1, 2008 5:53 pm

The Healthy American Act (forced comprehensive health insurance) is without constitutional authority. Government has no powers to remove nor infringe upon the protection of individual’s rights. Government has no authority into forcing a person to be healthy. [quote]Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote] [quote]Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/quote] Some people do not believe in modern medicine (50 years) for reasons of life (risk), liberty (choice), religion and are protected against forced affiliation. Given the choice of treatment, some might prefer herbs or natural remedies and be very against invasive surgery, pharmaceutical intake, shots, and all western medical procedures. What of those who espouse… Read more »

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:40 pm

I am not a fan of government mandated cost controls. All they seem to create is bankruptcies (go look at the retirement home industry, medical imaging industry, etc…). Businesses do a better job of managing costs without killing medical care providers. As for drug costs there are 2 problems. The first is that you cannot regulate marketing all that easily (right of free speech) and marketing is one of the top costs (and a complete waste of money as far as the patient is concerned). And the second is that you also need to allow drug companies to make a profit – or there are no new drugs in development. It is hard to balance the need for cost control with the need for $ for R&D on new drugs and the inability to control marketing expenditures. Anyway, here is a framework that I am in favor of. I would prefer if the government stay out of it all together as a provider of care and maybe just provide subsidies for the poor to go out and get insurance – though w/ a cap on profits or competitive bidding. People can then take that $ and shop for the plan that best suits their needs. And those of us that don’t qualify for a subsidy (which I would argue should be the vast majority of Americans as we can afford to shop for our own insurance) should be left to our own devices. And if they can find a way… Read more »
Friday, February 1, 2008 4:45 pm

Matt: Thanks for the link. I’m curious, aside from the idea of universal healthcare, or not….what are your thoughts on controlling costs? You mention that government not being able to anything under budget…ok, but in my view the private sector has run amuck (i.e. prescription costs and cost of healthcare insurance) which represents a huge part of the problem. If that were somehow reigned in….and that means some sort of price regulation which I’m guessing you would oppose, the system as it is might not be so problematic. Thoughts?

Friday, February 1, 2008 4:41 pm

[quote comment=”65834″]Mandated universal coverage means that 25 year olds overpay for health insurance to subsidize 50 year olds. Absolutely!! It’s supposed to work that way. Since we all expect to one day be 45 (and 60, 70, etc.) we pay more now to get the benefit later. Mandates make sense precisely because it is rational on an individual basis for a healthy 25 year old to choose to be uninsured, but it makes more sense as a community to spread the risk over a larger pool.[/quote] Question for you – how is Social Security rational when the system will be bankrupt before the 25 year old hits 71 and gets to collect? Social security isn’t at all rationale for younger people as individuals or for younger generations collectively. It is just a raw deal if you are younger. Universal coverage isn’t all that different……the government cannot keep promising citizens benefits they cannot fund. They already cannot fund the benefits they have promised! Almost every state in the US has a massively underfunded pension and OPEB program. Social security & Medicare start running massive deficits inside of the next decade (and could run through the mythical “trust fund” by 2030). Just to keep current benefits where they are and not increase spending on anything, we are facing either massive deficits that make the Bush deficits seem like chump change, or massive tax cuts. And on top of that you want the US Government to take over healthcare for everyone? Good luck… Read more »

Friday, February 1, 2008 4:24 pm

[quote comment=”65830″][quote comment=”65821″]Clearly you have had more than your fair share of the cool-aid and are not open to ideas that show how universal healthcare is not at all going to fix any of the problems you just cited. And the issue isn’t the Medicare workers, it is the workers in their late 40’s up until age 65 that will drive up healthcare costs (or taxes) when all the younger workers are subsidizing their healthcare. [/quote] Those are some pretty over-reaching conclusions not at all supported by my post. No wonder the simplistic article appealed to you so much – you’re incapable of considering multiple data elements, prespectives, or viewpoints.[/quote] I chose a simplistic article for 1 simple reason – it stuck out in my mind. Plus, there are naysayers on this board that always say “prove it” so instead of me saying something, I just put a link to an article that cited sources. I spend all day reading and distilling a lot of information into simple and easy to understand concepts. That is what I do – I spend all day reading through things…….and turn all of that into a 1-2 page summary (more if needed). I sent you probably one of the better summary articles on the universal coverage myth that I had read. None of it was new or unfamiliar to me. You can think about it if you want or dismiss it as cr*p. Your choice. But remember this, the government has never ever been… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x