You are right - I believe you agreed to be on the team when you voted in the primary, as an ethical obligation. So I would find it offensive if after having agreed to be on the team, you were to vote against the team or not support it. Not earth shatteringly offensive, more like someone who smells like a smoker offensive - I don’t think smoking is a good choice, but its your choice.
Which is why I don’t vote in primaries.
This isn’t about rules, its about personal ethics. And my personal ethics about this are pretty firm. It doesn’t make any difference if the parties allow it or not, that isn’t the point of ethics.
To be fair, I think it’s possible that your perspective on this might vary depending on your state setup. I never voted in a caucus state; caucusing might arguably be considered more of a team sport than casting a single secret ballot. Whether or not your state has open or closed primaries probably makes a difference as well.
I’m offended when people talk on the phone in a public restroom. We have an entire board that gets offended when someone else declaws their cat. Offended isn’t exactly an earth shaking state or one that demands laws should be changed.
Honestly, the fact that so few of you seem to see the plain ethical truth of Dangerosa’s words makes me livid, and thus makes it difficult to respond, given that this thread is not in the Pit. But I have taken several deep breaths, and I will attempt to do so.
Upthread, I used an analogy of people buying rounds at a pub. I will now use another pub analogy, positing a group of mates/buddies who go out regularly in a tough part of town. There is an unspoken understanding in such a group that they have each others’ backs. If someone from outside the group is threatening violence against someone in the group, they are all expected to circle the wagons against the interloper.
In this analogy, the Bernheads are like someone who hangs out in this group and is absolutely willing to let the others have his back if he’s the one who needs it, but if someone else does, then he is going to suddenly become scarce. That is not cool. Being a free rider is not ethical, even if the rules allow you to get away with it.
The whole reason for parties is that if they don’t exist, the first group of loosely similar ideological factions to band together as a party will have a powerful advantage against the splinter factions on the other side who do not do so. But there is an implied compact there that I thought most everyone understood. The strength of the party comes from its having greater size than a narrow ideological faction does. But that also means there is ideological diversity within it. Since there can only be one standard-bearer, or the whole point is lost, there has to be some sort of system for determining who that standard-bearer will be. And if this is determined, as is the case in the modern day, by canvassing the members of the party, then the implied compact is that individual factions will try to get their preferred candidates nominated, but will still rally behind another candidate if that candidate wins more support.
If no one feels bound to such an implied compact, then there really is no point in even having parties. If one group does feel that obligation but another group does not, then the latter group is composed of free riders, political leeches.
Reading the objection given about voters who wanted someone like Kasich to be the nominee, I will amend this position slightly and say that it’s fair to give someone one Mulligan. A Republican who saw the party as the type that nominated people like McCain and Romney, who voted for Jeb or Kasich in the primary this year, but then was horrified to see Drumpf win the nomination, I think would be within his or her ethical rights to refuse to vote for Drumpf in the fall. But that action should be taken as an indication that they have quit the party, and will not vote in the next cycle’s primary. And in fact, they should not come back and vote in the party’s primary until there has been at least one cycle that they voted for that party’s nominee in the most recent election.
Yeah, I know you believe that. You are factually mistaken. An agreement is an actual thing. This isn’t some metaphysical point: I made no such agreement. No such agreement was offered to me. You are wrong when you claim I agreed any such thing.
I guess LHOD must not believe in the social contract. Also, I would not want to get involved in any scenario with him or her that involved implied reciprocity, as I would apparently get burned.
We have different definitions of what party politics are. Some people believe that when you are a member of a family, you’ve agreed to certain family obligations. Some people believe when you marry, there are certain obligations that you take when you marry. I think when you engage in party politics, you take on certain obligations.
If I’m in a marriage and its an open marriage, I will run into people who say its not a “real” marriage - or that I’m not behaving in a manner consistent with marriage. I’ll offend people who think my behavior isn’t right or ethical. And to them, they are right, my marriage wouldn’t be a real marriage by their terms and they have every right to be offended. What they don’t have a right to do is to change the terms of my marriage.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s relationship to their party. I just find such behavior offensive.
I’m pretty sure he’s black as well. I wasn’t accusing him of racism and don’t think he engaged in it. My point was that he might want to rethink attacking Clinton supporters as being “entitled”.
I’m actually not a Clinton supporter but one of the big problems the Sanders camp seems to have is foolishly assuming their opponents are “entitled” or “the establishment”.
Unless you’re defining the word “agree” in some entirely novel way, though, you’re wrong that I’ve agreed to any such thing. The voting process has highly specific rules for participation, and I read up on them and follow them to a T. None of the rules for voting in a party primary involve the sort of agreement you’re talking about; indeed, our state goes for an open primary, going out of its way to avoid even the appearance of any such agreement. No party official I’ve ever heard of has suggested such an agreement.
To use your example, if someone tells people in a polyamorous relationship that they agreed to be monogamous when they married, that person is factually incorrect, in exactly the way you are when you say I agreed to some sort of party loyalty. No, I didn’t. I dislike the party structure pretty intensely, in fact; but I’m focused on outcomes, so I participate in the process rather than maintain purity. That participation has no explicit or implied obligations cast on me to vote for the ultimate party candidate.
And that’s a really good thing. Otherwise, anyone foolish enough to listen to Slacker’s exhortations to vote for Trump in the primary, as a way of sabotaging the Republicans, would be ethically obligated to vote for Trump in November.
What you miss by saying that, other than the fact that I decided not to do it, is that I was very open about the fact that I was trying to hurt that party and all of its candidates. Not just some of them, all of them. If you are voting in a the Democratic primary with the intent of damaging the party, you are obviously my adversary but I give credit to your vote as being legitimate tactic because you won’t expect anyone in the party to have your back.
I think it’s even worse than that, because both spouses in such a marriage have agreed to for it to be open. Bernheads who won’t support Hillary in the fall are like the husband who expects his wife to be faithful to him, but has no sense of reciprocity about his own behavior.
…but that doesn’t seem to be the case in North Carolina (if I remember your state correctly).
I see that Minnesota, where Dangerosa says she lives, holds caucuses. I seem to recall that there’s such a thing as “Minnesota nice.” So there might be some sort of plausibly implicit contract in that state. I don’t know. To put it another way, for me to show up in a Minnesota Republican caucus and attempt to prop the biggest duffus would be legal, possibly moral according to utilitarian criteria, but also kind of a dick move. I’m saying that as a guy who once did exactly that during an open Republican primary in another state. SlackerInc: Hillary is on target to win the nomination. If you want to pivot to party unity, you should ease up on the Bernhead bashing. Frankly this election is All Going According To My Plan. It’s going to be harder to caricature Hillary as a radical socialist in the general after she defeated a real live one in the primary. I would bet that Sanders will throw his support over to Hillary in a couple of months and campaign for her. There’s reason to hope that he may have recruited additional foot soldiers for down ballot races. And there is sizable though less than 50% chance that the Republicans could suffer an earth-shattering epic blowout in November. Regardless though we need to keep the boat afloat.
People enter into unstated agreements all the time. They may just not understand the terms. If I do you a favor, my unstated expectation is that you will return it. My unstated agreement with my boss is that I’ll work more or less 40 hours a week, even if I’m salaried and frequently work from home.
You don’t need to participate in the process. I don’t because I can’t give the loyalty I believe in.
Part of the reason I believe this is because I believe its unethical to cross party lines to give the other party the worst candidate. Its a violation of the idea of a party. If you’ve crossed party lines to vote for Trump in the primary - that’s exactly why I think you should be ethically beholden to vote for Trump in the General. Each party gets to put its best candidate forth without the other party trying to game them.
Parties come out of the idea of patronage. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. That only works if you stick around to scratch mine.