posted
Was listening to the Glenn Beck show today (I know, I know), and he was talking about something that seems like it might have some merit.
His basic thought was that registering for a particular party gave that party carte blanche to do as it wanted, and that people should register independent and vote for the best person. In this way, the parties would see that they didn't have a built in base and would be much more responsive to voters. He extended this idea to donating to parties rather than individuals.
I think this idea might have some merit. If people declare themselves not a member of a team, I think this takes pressure off of them to be a team player, to be a kneejerk member of a party. By focusing on individuals, it allows more individuals to run, rather than party hacks.
posted
I register with whichever party I want to be most able to influence via the system of primaries. The answer I enter into that field does not create any further behavioral obligation to be a 'team player.'
Party hacks will still win, though. Plurality. Safety in numbers and money.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This depends upon which state you are in. In Nebraska you can not vote for most stuff in the primaries if you are independent. Other states apparently let you pick one of the parties primaries to vote in while maintaining your status. I'm still registered as an Independent in spite of this.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately in many states, such as mine, it also means you can't vote in primaries. On those days I just go to get the sticker.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also a registered Independent. I will most likely change that status late this year so that I can vote in the primaries. Problem is that I would like to vote in both the Republican and Democratic ones.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people start registering independent and voting independently, will primaries really matter? It seems to me that primaries matter precisely because of the party machine.
Consider if people just ran for office, and people voted for the best qualified candidate on the appropriate day.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Unfortunately in many states, such as mine, it also means you can't vote in primaries. On those days I just go to get the sticker.
posted
How exactly does one register as independent? So far as I know, I'm not registered as anything. Is it just the default?
Also, how do you find out what your state requires to vote in the primaries? Wikipedia is failing me.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: How exactly does one register as independent? So far as I know, I'm not registered as anything. Is it just the default?
Also, how do you find out what your state requires to vote in the primaries? Wikipedia is failing me.
Your state probably has its own website with its constitution/legal codes available.
Find the information you need and edit wikipedia accordingly, it's the right thing to do.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a registered independent for about fifteen years. A little over a year ago, I switched my affiliation so that I could vote in primaries.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: If people start registering independent and voting independently, will primaries really matter?
The primaries matter because only candidates with the backing of something like a party can get the word out successfully enough to make it on the ballots. Therefore, the primaries essentially determine what my choices as an independent voter are.
-o-
An acquaintance of mine convinced me that moderates like me were doing ourselves and our cause a disservice, because, by removing our voice from the early phases of shoosing candidates, we made it likelier that we would only get more extreme and less moderate candidates. Certainly I can think of candidates I would rather have seen in the last two elections for president than the ones we did see.
-o-
FWIW, though, I don't vote a straight ticket. In case that's what you're thinking party affiliation leads to.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually tend to think that, even though many people don't vote straight ticket, actually registering as a particular party tends to focus people on the party and not the individual. I think, further, that it has a psychological effect on a person and how they perceive themselves in relation to the political system and other parties.
I also think that if people are registered as party members, this further validates the two party system. Even though, as you say, people don't have to vote a certain way, if a bunch of people are registered either Repub or Dem, this validates the whole party system in the public view.
Icarus,
quote: The primaries matter because only candidates with the backing of something like a party can get the word out successfully enough to make it on the ballots. Therefore, the primaries essentially determine what my choices as an independent voter are.
I am unclear on this paragraph. I think what you are saying is that only parties can get people elected because only parties can get the word out about where they stand to people. So, therefore, there must be big parties because without a large organization with deep pockets behind a politician, that politician can't win. Is this accurate?
This sounds pretty convincing to me, if so.
quote: An acquaintance of mine convinced me that moderates like me were doing ourselves and our cause a disservice, because, by removing our voice from the early phases of shoosing candidates, we made it likelier that we would only get more extreme and less moderate candidates. Certainly I can think of candidates I would rather have seen in the last two elections for president than the ones we did see.
I actually tend to think the exact opposite occurs. I think your paragraph above tends to bear this out. I think most candidates are very middle of the road for a variety of reasons. The political system doesn't really reward people for risk at the political level. I think that's why the two parties have pretty much been running on their respective platforms for at least a hundred years.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The primaries matter because only candidates with the backing of something like a party can get the word out successfully enough to make it on the ballots. Therefore, the primaries essentially determine what my choices as an independent voter are.
I am unclear on this paragraph. I think what you are saying is that only parties can get people elected because only parties can get the word out about where they stand to people. So, therefore, there must be big parties because without a large organization with deep pockets behind a politician, that politician can't win. Is this accurate?
I *think* that sounds like what I'm saying. Beyond that, I'm saying that if I don't vote in the primaries, my choices are drastically diminished. Someone else is determining the pool I get to choose from.
quote:
quote:An acquaintance of mine convinced me that moderates like me were doing ourselves and our cause a disservice, because, by removing our voice from the early phases of shoosing candidates, we made it likelier that we would only get more extreme and less moderate candidates. Certainly I can think of candidates I would rather have seen in the last two elections for president than the ones we did see.
I actually tend to think the exact opposite occurs. I think your paragraph above tends to bear this out. I think most candidates are very middle of the road for a variety of reasons. The political system doesn't really reward people for risk at the political level. I think that's why the two parties have pretty much been running on their respective platforms for at least a hundred years.
I think it's more complex than that. I think candidates pretend to be centrist after they're nominated, to get the swing votes. Looking back at 2004, the strong right wingers are going to vote for Bush, by and large, because who the heck else are they going to vote for? The liberals are going to vote for Kerry because, who else are they going to vote for? So Bush and Kerry can safely try to appear centrist to court the moderate vote. But before they're nominated, I think a different mechanism works out. I think the primary system initially rewards the more extreme candidates from within their parties, because most people who vote in primaries are not moderates. Which means that while they try to court me as a moderate in the end, the major candidates I actually get to choose from are not the ones I would have preferred from each party.
EDIT: Palindrome! | | V
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I register as an unaffiliated voter. That means I can vote in any one primary I choose to. (This is CA, of course. But I am pretty sure it worked that way in TX, too, although I was so pregnant I don't remember how it worked the one primary I voted in there.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You show up and they see you are an unaffiliated voter; they tell you, "You can vote in any one primary and only one. Do not mark more than one party's primary ballot or your vote for the primary will be discounted. Do you have any questions on how to mark your ballot?" You say no, vote, turn it in as usual. The machines note if you have marked more than one primary and invalidate the primary portion of your ballot (we have fairly decent machines; in some machines it would invalidate the whole ballot.) You get your sticker, leave, and go about your business.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, although actually E tickets were the most expensive. But I thought that's what he was saying. Since you got less of the low-level tickets.
posted
Storm, in each state I know of that has open primaries restircting each person to one party per election, the primaries are on the same day, so it becomes fairly easy to manage. I don't know how they would manage in situations where the party primaries are on different days.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Yeah, although actually E tickets were the most expensive. But I thought that's what he was saying. Since you got less of the low-level tickets.
Unless I'm wrong, of course.
*nod* That's what I was saying. I couldn't figure a boring attraction like primary voting would be worth an E-Ticket.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A-Tickets were hard to get rid of, actually. Only the Tiki Room and the shooting gallery accepted them, as I recall, so at the end of the night, there was always a massive crowd at the shooting gallery. :-p
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm registered with a party affiliation because the Iowa Caucuses are fun, and Independents don't get to go.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait. How long has that been available in California kq? I distinctly remember not being able to vote in one of the primaries but it may be as far back as the second Clinton election when I last tried.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think (if I am remembering correctly) that I haven't registered as anything. When I go to vote in a primary, they ask which ballot I want. I'm in Illinois.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |