How does registering to vote work in the USA?

Factual Questions
21

I understand the reason for this; they fear voter “sabotage”. If you’re affiliated with one party, the reasoning goes, then you’re probably going to vote crazy in the other party’s primary. You can’t be trusted to play fair.

But I’ve always lamented this rule, whether it’s enforced (as in my state), or whether you’re just on your honor to follow it (as you apparently are in Virginia). Personally I’d rather help my favored candidates in each party win, so that I have the best choice possible come November. Not only is this a personal preference, it really seems like the most rational strategy for any voter, taking the practical view.

Not that many voters are all that rational or practical of course.

22

In New Jersey, if you register as an Independent you can vote in a primary, but doing so switches your affiliation to the party whose primary you voted in. At least that’s what happened to me some years back. I eventually got around to changing my affiliation from Democrat back to Independent.

23

Here in NJ, one registers to vote and *may * specify a political party or not. You can be a member of a party without specifying it on your voter registration, though. Just go to a local Republican or Democrat meeting and participate.

To reiterate the purpose, which makes sense to me: Registered Republicans select the Republican candidates for various state and national offices. Registered Democrats select the Democrat candidates. The Yankees don’t get to pick who will pitch for Boston, and the Red Sox don’t get to pick who pitches for New York. Same principle.

When it comes to the actual election, all registered voters can vote for anyone of any party, of course, and in most cases may write in a person they’d prefer, if they don’t like anyone on the ballot. You are NOT in any way indicating which party’s candidate you’ll vote for byspecifying a political party when you register.

24

The United States has a weak-party system. What constitutes a party and its membership is rather ambiguous and free flowing. Generally, no one, except elected officials, speaks of being a member of a party. A party in American politics is not like a political party in the United Kingdom or a labour union or the type of organization you can join as such.

When someone says “I am a Republican,” he doesn’t literally mean “I am a registered and paid-up member of an organisation called the Republican party and I have certain rights and obligations under the bye-laws of that organisation.” What he or she usually means is “I am sympathetic in general to the policy positions in the aggregate of those elected officials who claim the ‘Republican’ label and I usually vote for the Republican candidate in an election.”

So, there is no point at which “members” of an American political party get together to “choose a leader.” Indeed, an American political party doesn’t have a leader in the same way that parties in other countries do. There is no official membership roll and there is no body that has the authority to decide who can and cannot be a member of the party. And there is really no point at which an ordinary voter “chooses to join” a party.

A party’s candidates are not usually chosen in a closed system, such a a party conference or convention. They are chosen in a primary election, which is pretty much run the same way as a regular election – it’s a public event, not a private one. And in most states, the only requirements for voting in a party’s primary are: (1) being a duly registered voter, and (2) not voting in more than one party’s primary election.

No, because parties do not really have members. In some states you have to declare allegiance to a party in advance of the primary election in order to be allowed to vote, but you can change your registration nearly at will. In most states, all you do is show up at the voting place and ask for the ballot. You will not be asked which party you are a “member” of. On the next primary election, you may choose the same party’s ballot or a different party’s ballot.

In the United States, parties don’t really have leaders in the same sense. In some states, candidates are still chosen in caucuses, in which those who choose to be active in the local party organisation get together and choose which candidate they prefer, but this is becoming rare. This is still not like being a member of a party, because there is no official mechanism for deciding who is and who isn’t a member.

No, not really. You never really “join” a political party.

25

Not exactly accurate. There is a national chairman of each of the major political parties, and I’d guess the same is true of others. I’m actually not sure how that selection is made, but it is definitely not done as a public matter. Your average citizen has no direct say in who the chairman of the Democrat or Republican national chairman.

Another wrinkle is that in primaries, at least here in NJ, one does get to vote for a county committeman AND committeewoman. There is usually only one of each on the ballot, selected, I suppose, by some county political club or organization. I don’t know for sure exactly what the county committee people do, but it most likely has to do with selection of candidates for county offices, or with a role in the statewide organization. I believe that the state political organization gets to select who will be its delegates to the national convention, and perhaps who will be on the ballot for state offices.

The primary election, especially for President, gives an indication of who the primary voters would prefer that their delegates to the national convention select. But the selection IS made in a convention, and the delegates may and do change their votes as some candidates withdraw, or as deals are made. And again, in the case of the presidential nominating conventions, while there is most definitely a public portion, there is also much going on in private. In times past, the private part was much more important.

26

This is not the same thing as a party leader in the sense of non-U.S. political parties. There is no national chairman of the Democratic party. There is a national chairman of the Democratic National Committee. However, the D.N.C. is not a party organisation such that it exists in other countries. It does not control the membership of the party and it does not control the party’s policy positions. The D.N.C. is merely the most prominent of the many fund-raising and campaigning organisations associated with the Democratic party.

As I said, there is no such official.

Where there are primaries, there is no party organisation that controls ballot access. That is done by state law. Anyone can decide that he or she wants to run for office as a Republican, say, and try to get nominated in the Republican primary. So long as you win the primary, there is no party organisation that can prevent you from claiming the party’s label.

The presidential primary process is somewhat different from other offices. However, it has been a good two or three decades since the convention really decided anything substantial. Every year, the “private” part of the process becomes more and more insignificant.

27

Thanks so much, acsenray. This makes understanding the US political scene so much more comprehensible. In all the years I’ve been watching the news, no-one ever mentioned this.

28

…although, on rereading the other posts that happened since mone, I’m still confused. But it’s a more enlightened level of confusion. :slight_smile:

29

If you can elaborate on your confusion, someone might be able to help.

30

It wasn’t really gerrymandering but in England (and the rest of the UK) they used to have rotten boroughs until the electoral reforms of 1832 and 1867. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think there’s a problem with rotten boroughs in the UK today (although some UK Dopers may say otherwise).

31

Ah, OK. I see how, if it is a common occurrence, we can reach a point where only one candidate may really be considered a “serious” candidate. Thank you.

32

If you go to Great Debates, there are often threads on reforming the American electoral process. You can read about proportional representation, instant runoffs and all sorts of ideas.

The actual process of voting was something not many Americans paid attention to until 2000. The Bush-Gore election probably spawned more threads than any other topic here.

33

In other words, you have to vote for a male and for a female?

I’m with Sunspace on this, all those tiny quirks (which I assume vary from state to state) are still rather incomprehensible to me, but you’ve cleared the general concept of “primary elections”, and I thank you.

34

In New York City, it has been very difficult for anyone but a Democrat to get elected to office (recent mayors aside). Therefore the real choice among candidates is made in the Democratic primary. Many people who would otherwise be Republicans or Independents would register as Democrats so as not to be effectively disenfranchised. Unfortunately newspaper reporters and others who desired to appear to completely neutral and objective didn’t want to register with a party affiliation, beacuse party affiliations are a matter of public record.

35

New York STATE politics is pretty weird and creepy, too. The Democrats have a solid lock on the State Assembly (the house in which representation is by population) and the Republicans are in similarly permanent control of the State Senate (the house in which representation is per the county). Furthermore, the Speaker of the Assembly and the President of the State Senate each run their party (and therefore their respective houses) like an absolute fiefdom. An elected politician plays along with the party and toes the line when told to do so or gets politically eviscerated. So a lot of New York State politics that should be matters of getting one’s elected officials’s ear may actually be decided by a power oligarchy consisting of Sheldon Silver, Joseph Bruno, and whoever is serving as Governor (George Pataki at present).

36

One of the big differences between the US voting system and most (if not all?) of the European systems I am familiar with is that in the States, we literally vote for the person, rather than the party the person represents.

Campaign ads for candidates in any race, from president to a local city representative, almost never mention the party the person represents. The ads focus on that individual’s qualities, beliefs, and/or plans (or they focus on the negative qualities, beliefs, and/or plans of the opponent), but there is rarely even a footnote to tell viewers what party the person represents.

You can usually get this information from the local newspaper, and it is generally listed on the ballot when you actually vote, but there are even some positions that are completely party-free, such as local judges.

As has been explained already, the populace actually chooses the final candidate for each party in the final elections, rather than having the choice left to the party itself. ANYONE who has the desire and financial resources can run for any office, for any party, and the person with the most votes in the end wins, regardless of any background experience or qualifications. This is why we sometimes end up with rich celebrities in positions of governmental power, including actors, soldiers, and astronauts. (Note: I am not claiming that none of these people are qualified, but it is true that the States have a higher proportion of rich celebrities in political offices than most other democractic countries.)

Party affiliation is also somewhat of a joke here, since both of the major parties are pretty centralist. The Republicans tend to be slightly right of center, and the Democrats tend to be slightly left of center, but the differences often aren’t significant except in one or two areas, such as abortion. (Republicans are more likely to be anti-abortion, while Democrats are more likely to be pro-choice, but even this isn’t a hard and fast rule.)

Even after being elected, the person holding office makes decisions about policy, rather than having the policy dictated by the party they represent. It’s quite possible to have a Republican who is publicly pro-choice, or a Democrat who is publicly anti-abortion, even though the party lines tend in the opposite direction. It is also possible for an official to switch parties while still in office. This is rare, but not unheard of, and while the individual may not be re-elected the next time around, it does not mean automatic loss of position, as it would in Europe.

In the States, many voters are affiliated with a specific party based on their registration choices and/or their own political leanings, but only a relatively small percentage of the population actually joins one of the parties, to pay dues. Even when an American declares that s/he is a “card-carrying” Democrat or Republican, that usually means only that s/he has checked that particular box on her/his voter registration form, and the party affiliation is noted on the card they issue to tell you where you have to go to vote. No money changes hands for this “privilege” in most cases, and the individual voter is free to vote for any candidate in any final election. (The right to vote in primary elections has already been discussed.)

Our Federal tax forms, though, do include the option of contributing $2 per taxpayer to the Presidential Fund, which provides campaign funds to any candidate running for the office of President, regardless of party. I usually check the box to allow this, primarily to give non-party candidates the chance to run for office.

When a candiate “represents” a party, it simply means that they can use financial resources for that party, including especially donor contributions to that party. The Democratic party, for example, will pay for a certain number of campaign ads for candidates who are affiliated with the Democratic party. The Democratic party could refuse to provide funding to candidates who “claim” to be Democrats, but whose policies are contrary to those that are generally accepted by the Democratic party, but if said candidate has enough money and/or individual donations to run the campaign without the financial support of the Democratic party (which is admittedly rare), there is really nothing to prevent that person from running as a Democrat on the ballot. In most situations like this, though, the candidate will run as an Independent, to avoid conflicts.

37

Kiminy, thanks for this exposé. I knew that the US system was more person-oriented than party-oriented (for example, I know that US politicians vote against their party line all the time, while it is much less frequent, especially on important votes, in other countries, like mine, Canada), but I wasn’t aware of the extent to which it is true. From what I’ve read in this thread, political parties (both major ones, at least) almost seem to be abstract entities. You are a Democrat (or a Republican) if you decide you’re one, and if you run for office as one, it doesn’t mean that you have the approval of the “party”, just that the other local people who affiliate with this party have chosen you to represent them. Am I correct?

38

That’s about the size of it. Good summary!

39

It was actually $3 on the most recent (year 2004) 1040 form.

40

I don’t know. Movie stars play a pretty big role in politics in India and the Phillipines. In fact, in those countries, getting celebrity endorsements is pretty important for politicians.