They want a loyalty oath to vote in the primary? Are they afraid of some kind of “Operation Chaos”?
Who knows what those idiots are thinking. It’s not like the oath is in any way enforceable. It would make a lot more sense to work to get rid of open primaries if they really want to ensure that only Republicans vote in the Republican primary.
Utterly ridiculous. I’d refuse to vote in the primary.
“Good morning, sir. You need to sign this loyalty oath before you vote today.”
“Hmm. Really? Let me see it. Mmm hmmm. Mhmm. Go fuck yourself. And get out of my way.”
ETA: I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t another way that Republicans are trying to prevent “voter fraud”. :rolleyes:
I’d really like to see the particulars about this, because I can’t see how it doesn’t fall afoul of voter intimidation laws.
I’d sign it. I’d sign it “Lengleberger Humpledumple”.
Eh, I don’t really have a problem with it in theory. I never really liked the idea of open primaries anyways.
But I suspect its a measure targeted at Ron Paul, who is one of only two candidates on the ballot and who I would imagine stands to gain a lot more from independents and Dems voting then Mitt Romney does. Granted Paul is a racist schmuck, but finagling with the rules to try and hurt him instead of just having him loose via people voting for the other guy seems scummy.
With apologies to Joseph Heller:
How in the hell do they plan to enforce such a thing? Voodoo? The honor system? If you lie, you go to Hell?
Voters in Ohio are required to sign a similar statement when they change their party affiliations by voting in a different party’s primary. The rule wasn’t widely enforced until around 2010, though, and for all I know the new Secretary of State might have told counties to go back to being lax about it.
I don’t see anything wrong with reminding people about the point of a partisan primary. There are letters to the editor here every year by outraged!! people who were disenfranchised!! by not being allowed to vote in every parties’ primaries at once. Maybe partisan primaries are a bad idea for other races, but a presidential primary has to be a partisan affair (even if any voter is allowed to vote, they’re still voting to elect people (delegates) to internal positions within the party).
Why in hell does anyone think its a bad idea for people to have a voice in who might be president? Even if I am voting democrat in the election, the republican might win, and I’d prefer someone who I can deal with.
I’d sign it, vote, and the minute my secret ballot was safely in its box, take off my shirt to reveal… an Obama t shirt.
Good freakin’ Flying Spaghetti Monster, the GOP in Virginia have lost their everlovin’ minds. I love the previous poster’s idea about the Obama T-shirt and/or signing yourself in as Mickey Mouse or Sponge Bob.
Seems to me that Rush Limbaugh once exhorted his listeners to vote to screw up the Democratic primaries, and my recollection of the reaction in these hallowed halls was outrage. And … maybe just my imagination, but it sure seems like a couple vocal liberals here at the time suggested making voters sign something before they could vote.
Interestingly, they didn’t call the idea “Loyalty Oaths.” But they seemed in favor of the plan.
Or am I imagining it?
Easy enough to determine, if you’d bother to do a search. I imagine you would, if you were sufficiently confident in your memory.
It would also be interesting to see if anyone who commented in that alleged thread were actually posting a different opinion here.
Well, it’s an interesting question. I think it comes down to exactly what political parties are in the first place. If you think about things as “well, here are a bunch of candidates from group A, and a bunch from group B… and we have a two stage election, in the first one, we choose who we like best from group A, and who we like best from group B. And in the second stage, we take the best-from-A and the best-from-B and we pit them against each other” then in fact you’re exactly right that it makes perfect sense that everyone should be able to vote in each primary.
But in fact (or at least in theory) a political party is basically a self-selecting quasi-private organization of people who have basic agreements about issues of policy and are trying to do what’s best for the nation by exercising political power. So the primary election is the place that all the democrats gather together and say “ok, we need the pick the political candidate who both best fits our beliefs, and who has the best chance of winning the general election”, and the republicans do the same. What business does someone who is not at all a democrat have voting while the democrats do that? Imagine for a second these two primary elections actually taking place in buildings somewhere… all the democrats gather in the high school gym and vote, while all the republicans gather in the library and vote. And one year someone who is running for the democratic nomination is some total jackass who is a terrible candidate and only has 15% support, while the republicans are all firmly behind a solid candidate. So the republicans come up with a clever plan… 99% of them go to the high school gym where the democrats are meeting, and all vote for the schmuck, who then wins the democratic nomination. 1% of the republicans then go to the library and have enough people to nominate their good solid candidate.
Now, does that seem like a situation in which democracy is “working”?
(I feel like there’s also an issue involving voter paradoxes. In a truly ideal system, you would always vote for the person you would most like to actually see win the election. In our current system, which is not ideal, you are at least theoretically voting for someone because you’d rather have them be elected than someone else… so there’s always SOME preference involved (ie, even the green party voter who holds his nose and votes D over R is doing so because of a preference for the D, even if the D is not his first choice). But in an open primary, you can easily imagine a situation in which someone is choosing who to vote for not because that person is their first choice, or even because that person is someone they prefer over someone else, but because that person is a bad candidate who is likely to lose if they end up as their party’s nominee. This seems qualitatively different than anything that happens in our current system.)
(a) as others have pointed out, your OMG-come-see-the-liberal-hypocrisy is particularly egregious here as you’re hinting at the existence of an actual SDMB thread while being too lazy to actually dig it up
(b) although I do remember such a thread existing, and outrage about Limbaugh’s requests, but not anything about loyalty oaths of any sort
(c) at the time, I was strongly opposed to open primaries, as I am now
(d) that said, IF I lived in a state that did have open primaries, and IF I felt that it was already s.o.p. for people to be deliberately voting for presumed-loser-candidates of the other party, I’m not sure I would refuse to do so based solely on principle, particularly in an election like 2012 where my party’s candidate (Obama) is obviously 100% guaranteed to be nominated, so why shouldn’t I cast my vote in a way that actually influences things? Which is, of course, why having such primaries is a bad idea in the first place. An election in which you can at no cost to yourself cast a vote designed solely to be sowing chaos among your opponents is not a meaningfully democratic election.
Careful what you wish for… because someone on the internet actually specifically identifying hypocrisy from another poster is one of the signs of the coming apocalypse, and it IS almost 2012…
I’m on Tapatalk and iPhone now. When I get to a real computer, I will.