In the U.S.A., Why Do People (Need to?) Register as Republican or Democratic (or Independent?)?

[Telemark]

@TriPolar

but that makes you a full fledged member of that political party.

IMO you’re putting way too much importance on what is basically a clerical notation.

[Acsenray]

@TriPolar

I don’t know what point you are trying to make here. No, you don’t need a membership card or to pay dues to become a Democrat or a Republican, usually you just check a box on a form, but that makes you a full fledged member of that political party. It is a public record. Each state maintains a list of the party memberships to determine who is eligible to vote and run in primaries. There is nothing informal about this. There is no special membership beyond that.

Membership comes with rights, privileges, and obligations with respect to an Organization. Registering with the state is nothing like membership.

[JRDelirious]

OK, the thing is: in the USA , very often we talk about “party affiliation”, rather than membership – it is basically a self-identification, meaning you support the candidates and platforms of that party. So unlike in parties in many other democratic countries, for most voters it is not an institutional, organizational “membership” where you “pay dues” either in cash or in work and are thereby entitled to participate in the internal governance and somehow obligated to the party. Out of that universe, those who are interested in being actively involved in party work usually will become members of things like the Young Democrats or College Republicans or similar organizations covering their respective demographic or sector of interest, or join directly in as volunteers of specific candidate campaigns or local party committees, as poll watchers or GOTV organizers, etc.

But the average man-on-the-street can change affiliations like he changes a coat, or conversely continue to declare himself affiliated while disagreeing with virtually everything his putative party stands for. To a great degree this is legacy from how for most of their history the national parties had been really coalitions of divergent regional and local factions.

@amarinth

Some states do that. My state explicitly does not. Anyone can run in primaries and can express a preference for any political party. And anyone can vote for anyone in non-presidential primaries.*

(there is a slight difference for presidential primaries but even then, depending on the party in question and their declaration that cycle, it may not go as far as membership.)

And for reference, let’s remember that someone who has sat in the House and Senate officially as an “Independent” for decades has been the top runner-up for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for two election cycles in a row; and that someone who has changed his affiliation five times in the last 30 some years and who was opposed by virtually every established leader when he threw his hat into the ring, is president as the unchallenged standard-bearer of the Republican Party.

[Northern_Piper]

Previous thread on that topic:

Could the Democratic Party have kept Bernie off the primaries?

This point has come up in various permutations over the past few months, and as a furriner, I’m confused. Over in the “Bernie Withdraws” thread, Left Hand of Dorkness says this: But I thought, from previous threads on primaries, that access to the ballot for primary elections is determined by state laws? And if you as a candidate meet the state’s requirements to enter a primary, the party can’t keep you from entering? And, since those state laws are set by the 50 states, there are 50 differ…

[TriPolar]

@Northern_Piper

Previous thread on that topic:

The parties may have grounds to bar candidates in some states, I don’t know of any, but generally the states allow any candidate to run in a primary when certain requirements are met such as requiring a minimum number of signatures on a petition. And in most case those signatures must be from official members of the particular party. That is one of the rights, privileges, and obligations that come with being a member of the party.

[Chronos]

Figures about how many Democrats vs. Republicans have voted early are probably just from pollsters asking people “Have you voted early?” and “What political party do you align with?”.

[Max_S]

@Drum_God

However, voting is a public record. Therefore, it can be accessed by the public. The two major parties pay vendors to compile and aggregate that data. So, the parties know who voted in which primary and can respond accordingly. Ballots are secret. No one can tell for whom you voted, but anyone can tell that you voted, including in which primary you voted.

I believe this is the case in Florida, too. Even whether you requested a mail-in ballot is a matter of public record. I remember a few years ago, some get-out-the-vote organizers sent out somewhat intimidating letters saying, ‘here’s a list of your neighbors who didn’t vote last election, and if you don’t vote this year, you’re going on this list and everybody will know!’

~Max

[Northern_Piper]

@Chronos

Figures about how many Democrats vs. Republicans have voted early are probably just from pollsters asking people “Have you voted early?” and “What political party do you align with?”.

Not according to this article:

Surge In Early Voting Driven Mainly by Democrats

So far, much of the early voting appears to be driven by heightened enthusiasm among Democrats. Of the roughly 3.5 million voters who have cast ballots in six states that provide partisan breakdowns, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by roughly 2 to 1, according to a Washington Post analysis of data in Florida, Iowa, Maine, Kentucky, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.”

[Drum_God]

The only way I can think of that working in Texas is if someone went to the trouble to see who has voted so far and then comparing that to who voted in which party’s primary. That would fail to capture all of the people who did not vote in a primary, so I think its accuracy would be rather dubious.