I just got through reading this article, and I’m a bit sickened that this seems to be considered legitimate.
It’s one thing to have open primaries where a member of one party is allowed by the rules to vote in the primary of a different party. But I’m not sure why it would be considered ethical by anyone to change your party affiliation for the sole purpose of negatively influencing a party you don’t support. I also don’t understand why people who consider themselves responsible and prominent public voices would think this is a valid way to encourage people to participate in the elective process.
By the way, I want it to be clear that I’m not only chastising the GOP here. I don’t think this is a reasonable thing for anyone to do for any party. I realize it’s naive to think that people won’t take underhanded action in order to influence an election, but this strikes me as being way out of bounds. Perhaps it’s just me.
Also, I’m a bit of a GD novice, so I apologize if there’s a problem with how I’ve stated the issue. I’m sure I’ll be corrected promptly.
Well, I’m a registered republican. However, I voted for Obama because I think he’s the best man in this race, plus McCain definately did not need my help. If Barack makes it as the nominee I’ll vote for him again.
Voting in somebody’s primary specifically for the purpose of trying to achieve something that would be universally agreed upon by all real members of the party to be a bad thing, seems to me to be morally equivalent to sneaking into somebody’s house and trying to trash the place - basically, you have to be a scumbag to do it, and it ought to be illegal.
And that applies whether they left the door open, or you had to climb through a window to do it.
I registered as a Democrat once just so I could vote against Tom Hayden. I didn’t vote for the Republican in the general election that followed, either. But I do think that once you change your registration, you should be forced to keep it for at least one complete election cycle. Not that that makes much difference unless the parties have staggered primaries.
I’m not sure I buy the reasoning from the article that if one only votes for the highest office eligible in the election, one must be looking to spoil the Presidential Primary. Given the rhetoric this year, I think it’s just as likely that it’s only the Presidential Primary that has the attention of many voters.
Having said that - given that there are advantages (at least in NYS) for a political party to have a high turnout in an election regardless of whether their candidate actually wins the election, or not, I tend to view the idea of swelling voter rolls to spoil a candidate as being counter-productive.
I think it’s a negative tactic, and one that I don’t like. But I don’t see it as all that important, either.
Considering the steaming, stinking heaps of stupidity the American political process generates, this is a fairly minor subterfuge. Any system that allows Ralph Nader to repeatedly and deliberately sabatoge it deserves all the perfidy it gets.
Why yes, I have lost all faith in the American electoral process. Why do you ask?
There have been a couple of threads on this already (be nice if I could search for them). The Dems tried it first this election season trying to get Romney into the driver’s seat in Michigan, and there was an effort on some GOPers to vote for Clinton in Texas and Ohio, apparently (although the exit polls showed that the majority of GOP voters who crossed over voted Obama, to the chagrin of some).
I have no problem with Republicans voting in Democrat primaries. I bet the amount of support Obama has gotten from people who usually vote Republican outweighs the spoiler effect that Limbaugh is trying to produce.
If your party’s candidate has already been chosen, why NOT vote in the opposing party’s primaries? Lots of Republicans who intend to vote for McCain in November would rather see Hillary (or Obama) in the office if McCain happens to lose. If the Democrat candidate had already been chosen, I wouldn’t feel guilty for voting in a Republican primary to try and keep someone like Huckabee or Paul from being the next potential president.
I see no problem with this. Everybody knows the rules and therefore the playing field is even.
There is another way to look at this as well. I know a couple people who cross party lines in the primaries to vote for the person in the other party that they prefer to win if their actual first choice loses. The idea is basically ‘I want X to win. However, if X from <insert party here> doesn’t win I’d rather have Y from <insert opposing party here> than Z from <insert opposing party here>. So I’ll vote in the primary for Y.’
I don’t see it as shady. I see it as way to maximize each voters power*.
Slee
*This works only if the people crossing party lines votes for thier best choice in the opposing party. If everyone crossed lines and voted for the person they expected to lose the election it’d be a race to the bottom. Also note, I know Dems and Pub who do this.
I don’t see what the problem is. We all have a hierarchy of who we’d like to be President. It’s not as if, “well, if my guy/party doesn’t win I couldn’t care less who wins”. As a registered Independent (conservative bent) I’d didn’t have to switch in order to vote in the Democratic primary, as it was open. But here I voted for who’d I want as my #2 choice, of the three, that is.
For those who are saying they might switch parties in order to support their second choice, I have less of a problem with that. However, the article I posted suggests that Limbaugh and others want to promote crossing party lines for the sole purpose of perpetuating the race between the Democratic candidates and preventing a clear winner from emerging.
As I said, what I find nefarious is switching parties specifically to be a detriment to the party you’ve switched to.
I don’t see anything wrong with this. I get to vote for who I want to run. If I want your side to nominate a wacko, why would it be unethical for me to try to make that happen? That’s what a vote is for…to influence an election the way you want it go.
What if I couldn’t care less which of my guys is nominated, I just want to make sure they win. It’d be totally rational to vote for your dark horse. Now it’d be different if I didn’t have to give up my ability to vote in my side’s primary. Two votes is always wrong. As it is, I have to surrender the power to help my side in order to hurt your side. Seems to me to be the electoral equivalent of playing defense.
ETA: Oh, and to the OP: This is a new concept to you? Where is your rock neighborhood?
Cute. It is new to me in the sense that I’ve paid far more attention to (and care a great deal more about) this primary season than any other in the 14 years that I’ve been eligible to vote. So while it isn’t particularly shocking to me that it’s happening (or being suggested, at least), it is true that I hadn’t actually heard of it or even really considered it before now.
Considering how many democrats and independents voted for McCain, it’s good you’re not singling us out. Whilst there are dueling conspiracy theories that pubs are voting for Hillary so McCain can slaughter her in November, or they’ve voting for Obama for the same reason, many republicans believe dems screwed us by voting for McCain. After all, the paranoia says, it’s not the dems who have been calling McCain a Republican In Name Only since long before the first primaries this year…
In my humble opinion, both sides are probably right, and there has been efforts on both sides to screw the other party. This year has had perfect conditions for it, too. In the two states where the dem votes didn’t count, why wouldn’t dems give into the temptation crossover to fix things? And now that McCain has won so early in the contest, why not crossover and vote for the democrat you think he’s more likely to beat? Or alternately, if you’re pissed that McCain was chosen against your consent, why not set the dems up to get a “bad” candidate too? It’s the perfect storm for pettiness, and it’s difficult to believe that everyone has been above it.
I’m an independent living in Maryland, so I can’t vote in the primary.
I’m from West Virginia, and my 70-year old, self-described liberal, 9th grade history teacher is a registered Republican, who admits that she votes for the least electable opposition candidates.
Although I can’t imagine vesting enough confidence in party loyalties, I don’t think it should be illegal, or even chastised.
I’m reminded of the joke about the little old ladies who win more money at the racetrack than anyone else. When asked for their method, they reply that they bet on the horses with the brightest silks, or the longest tails.
So, in a country where the mantra is “Let’s make every vote count”, you get upset because some voters choose to have their votes count rather than wasting them on a candidate that needs no more votes?
When someone votes in the other party’s primary, for the candidate they’d most like to see in office, I have no problem with it, even if they believe they’ll end up voting for their party’s candidate in the general. It kind of dilutes the point of a primary, but that’s okay. You’re still voicing your preference.
However, when someone votes in the other party’s primary specifically to harm that other party, then I have a problem. If your intent is to get the weaker candidate nominated, so your party can beat them, or to elongate the party’s nomination process, then I think you’re being unethical. You’re subverting the point of democracy.
I’d compare it to flag desecration, but it’s worse, really. Nobody really died for the flag. People did die to give you the right to vote. Stop spitting on it and vote constructively, not destructively.
In their view they are voting constructively, no matter who they vote for.
If they vote for the person most likely to win, they obviously have some favor toward that candidate or they wouldn’t help out the “opposition”, as it were.
If they vote for the candidate most likely to lose, they’ve helped their candidate win in the future.
In neither case is it destructive for the person casting the vote. It is very constructive for them.
