What a wonderful thing it would be if this was the dumbest or meanest thing they got up to, this year. Sadly, no.
But what if you really don’t intend to support the GOP nominee unless your guy wins. What if a voter has the idea that it is either Ron Paul or the Libertarian candidate. He is firm in his convictions that he will only vote for the GOP nominee if it is Ron Paul.
Has he violated his moral/ethical obligation if he votes anyways?
Yes. The way I like to think of it is this: pledging to support a candidate that I have no intention of voting for, and signing my name to that pledge, goes against my morals.
Invading foreign countries, occupying them and bombing them and killing the locals, in hopes of spreading democracy and obtaining oil, is also against my morals. Voting for Ron Paul would be doing my part to stop those atrocities, and ultimately, promoting the death of innocent people is MORE against my morals than signing a pledge that I do not intend to keep.
Which goes to my point that primaries should be closed. With respect, you are obviously not a Republican. As such, you shouldn’t be participating in the preliminary process to see which candidate the Republicans put out there.
Now, in the general election, if Paul is the nominee, then you have every right to vote for the guy.
slight hijack: I don’t think that Paul could do any of the things that you describe. I doubt he would have 1/3 of the votes in either house to sustain his vetos.
Yet another case where states should get out of the primary business.
I think the Republicans should get together and decide on the best way to elect a nominee and ditto the Democrats. It should not be up to the states to pay for these primaries.
Simple solution: when you register, you get a number that identifies your political affiliation and state so I would be REPCO0123456789 and a Democrat from New York is DEMNY1357924680 and a American Independent from Wisconsin is AMIWI<insert 10 digits>. I can go on the Republican website and vote in the primary and using my code they can
- Check the SOS database in my state to make sure I havn’t changed party affiliation
- Check to make sure I havn’t already voted
- Assign my vote to my state’s totals
On primary day, the totals are run and the candidates are ready for the Convention. Methods can be implemented if people do not have access to the internet or are not comfortable doing this on their own.
Not an argument but an honest question: The view I mentioned above is a single issue being debated. I subscribe to a fair number of Republican principles. Why should I be forbidden from participating in the primary voting process just because I don’t subscribe to the entire laundry list of viewpoints that the Republican party latches onto?
Because there was a case in Washington State that I think went up to SCOTUS that basically said the Freedom of Association works both ways. You can register for any political party you want but that political party also has a right to not have you as a member. I can’t find a cite for that case off-hand, but there is this case.
I think the idea is this. Pick a party and vote in the primary for the person that you want to represent you. In the general election, pick from all of the available choices. If the party thinks that you are undermining the process, they can kick your ass out.
I haven’t really thought through all the implications, but on the surface I fully agree.
And if you don’t subscribe to the entire platform of either party you’re SOL?
You still get to vote in the actual election. There’s no evidence that open primaries produce more electable candidates.
Yep.
But that I blame on the difficulty in most states of creating a new political party. I consider myself a Republican and fiscally conservative. But because I tend to be socially progressive: abortion-rights, SSM, etc. I feel disenfranchised by my party. Let’s say I want to start a grass-root party called the Centrist Party. I welcome any progressive Republicans or Democrats that are not rabid Keynesians. In most states, it would be nearly impossible to obtain party certification. I understand why states do it, but there doesn’t seem to be anyway to let a party grow to state-wide proportions.
A “rabid” Keynesian? You mean like a crazy-ass nutbar who suggests borrowing money when rates are low, buying materials when the cost is down, and employing people to build stuff we are going to have to build, anyway? I consider myself on the conservative wing of the extreme left, but I don’t actually see anything “rabid” about that.
You’ll note I qualified Keynesian. For me a rabid Keyesian is one who believes the problem with the economy is that the government doesn’t spend ENOUGH money and wants to increase spending and either rack up more debt or pay for it with significantly more taxes. Basically no matter how much we tax and spend, it is never enough for a rabid Keynesian.
A moderate Keynesian is what we usually get. In fact, I would classify Reagan as one of the worst recent pre-Obama Keynesians around.
Step 1 - Increase defense spending.
Step 2 -
Step 3 - All this government spending trickles down to the poor.
Honestly, I think you’re kind of Keynesian economics is laudable but you put limits on it. I’m assuming you do not support increased government spending without a tax base when borrowing money is expensive and labor is expensive. It also sounds like your economics is not a simple “throw money at the problem until it goes away” a la Bush Jr. and Obama but rather controlled spending addressing very specific problems. In fact, isn’t that the same view Keynes himself took post-1956?
It doesn’t just drive off the independents and Democrats, though. It also hurts the real Republicans; the people who should be voting in the primary. That’s my objection.
And if the parties were paying for the election, I’d be a lot more comfortable with the idea. As it is, the independents and small party supporters (I’m assuming that most states have some sort of minimum previous election threshold for third parties (even though they’d probably seldom have a disputed nominee anyway)) are paying some part of a penny to put on an election they aren’t allowed to vote in.
Eh, taxpayers pay for a lot of things that they don’t directly use. I’ve never been to Hawaii, but I’m sure that some small fraction of my tax dollars pay for roads there.
For better or worse, the political system has evolved into two broad, mostly centrist parties that attract the overwhelming majority of voters. If you are a member of the Paul Revere Party (made that up) consisting of you and three friends, then you can’t expect public support for that. Sort of like how there won’t be a public park or a state office in a town of 14 people.
I think it is in the best interest for the state to pay for, and therefore exercise some control, over the two main candidates for every office who win greater than 99% of the time.
But you could use roads in Hawaii. You cannot vote in a closed Democratic primary.
Anyway, it’s the state’s job to maintain control of elections. Primaries are not elections.
I feel a little guilty. This is sort of aimed at me. I have for years been registered as a Republican so I could vote in their primaries and then I generally vote Democrat in the general election.
It’s just that I find the primaries of the Republicans so much more entertaining. And sadly the Freedom of Fun is not one of the Freedoms granted by the Constitution.
S/he could in my state, by registering as Unenrolled, voting in either primary, and then voting for whomever s/he wants in the general election. I believe one can vote in only one primary, and one has to do something to change one’s status back to Unenrolled … I can look it up if anyone is interested.
Wow, you must’ve been rrrreeeeaaallllyyy far away from a PC. Where did you spend New Year’s Eve? Antarctica?