Black Democrats crossing party linesis widely credited with giving McDaniel the victory over Cochran in Mississippi. Aligations have also been made (although not substantiated) that Democrats voting in the Republican primary was what brought Cantor down.
Of course Democrats aren’t the only ones who do this, Limbaugh promoted operation Chaos, in hopes of prolonging the Democratic primary in 2008, (although now that it has been used by Democrats heunsurprisingly opposes it). Romney claims that he voted for Tsongas in 1992 because he thought that he would be easier for Bush to beat. And who could forget Nixon’sDirty tricks movement to deep six Muskie so that he could face McGovern in the general.
Overall my opinion is that it is OK to cross party lines in the case of voting for the lesser of two evils particularly in the case of a one party state like Mississippi where the winner of the primary is pretty much guaranteed to win the election. But that voting for a candidate that you actually oppose because you think he will be a weaker opponent for your real choice seems to me to be undemocratic electioneering. What do you all think.
If it’s legal, it’s legal and I won’t complain or judge anyone for doing it.
As for my own personal ethics, I think it’s wrong to vote for a candidate just to screw with the other party. So in the case of the Cochran/McDaniel election I have no problem with what the Democratic voters in the runoff did. But voting for the weakest candidate of the other party just because they are more objectionable is something I would not do (not that I haven’t been tempted).
ETA: Oh, and by the way I know the difference between “parties” and “party’s”, I just wanted to continue my continuous record of thread starts with typos and misspellings. :smack:
I think the crossovers in Mississippi were by people genuinely concerned about a Whack-a-doodle First Class becoming the state senator. In this case, Democrats were minimizing their chances of winning the general election in order to keep Republicans from making a serious mistake.
Personally, I have done it, and I voted for Rick Santorum in the 2012 Democratic primary in Michigan just because I wanted to prolong the nomination contest and increase the chances of the weakest Republican winning the nomination. Had I thought that Santorum had a ghost of a chance of beating Obama, I’d never do it.
The laws should not permit it - why should adherents of Party A be able to choose the nominee of Party B? - but as long as they do, I’m using them to help get my candidate ultimately elected.
Mississippi is an open primary state. Voters can choose whichever primary they wish to vote in, regardless of their party affiliation or lack thereof. Given that the system is structured to allow for cross-over voting, how could this constitute an unethical interference?
I voted “something else” because as long as it is legal for me to vote in a primary I can vote for whomever I want for whatever reason I want. I see no ethical issue whether I’m crossing over to ensure a better candidate is available in the general election or in hopes of sending a less qualified candidate to run against the candidate I prefer.
California now has an open primary. When I go, I will vote for the republican I think I would do the best job if he ends up winning.
Some plan to vote for the bat-shit crazy candidate that will be easily beaten by their candidate in the general. It has been my experience that God giggles when we make plans.
I see no ethical issue whatsoever, provided one is following the laws of the particular state – even if one is voting strategically to benefit the other party.
I don’t do it myself, but if it’s legal I can’t object to others doing it.
I don’t think it should be legal. I think voters who have registered as a party member should only be allowed to vote in the primary for that party, and independents who vote in a party primary are automatically registered as members of that party.
I place my vote wherever I think it will most likely lead to policies I agree with. Sometimes that means voting for my favorite candidate, sometimes that means voting for someone of a different party.
If the state is paying for the primary, then parties should have to take their chances. Closed primaries are simply another way that the major parties have hijacked the system to favor major parties. Truly open primaries (like what’re here in California) that give us a run-off between the top two vote-getters gives more power to the electorate to choose who best represents them. Rather than having to choose between whatever candidates the parties decide to give us.
If a party wants to restrict the choice of its candidates to only its members, it should have to pay for its own primary or caucus.
I voted something else. I favor candidate A who is already on the ballot, and B and C are in the primary. I think C is a wackadoodle. I’d vote for C if I thought A would beat him a large percentage of the time but not beat B so easily. However, if I thought A would beat C 20% of the time and beat B 10% of the time, I’m not going to simply try to increase A’s chances of winning at the cost of most likely still getting Do-wacka-do. I can’t tell you where the cut off is though.
Other way around unless there’s been a court order I don’t know about. Cochran won the nomination and will face Childers in the general election.
I vote in whichever primary happens to be most important to me at the time. Usually because I know one of the candidates for local office, and to support them I have to get the ballot for the whole party. In general elections, I often vote a split ticket, but that isn’t possible in the primaries.
Such a harsh phrase! Say, rather, tactical voting (a phrase which covers that and much besides, much of it by no means illegitimate from any POV – e.g., voting for Gore/Bush in 2000 even though you’d really rather have Nader/Buchanan as POTUS).
I believe in democracy and believe that some democratic systems are superior to others.
The best systems assume tactical voting, as tactical voting reflects the voter’s preferences.
Along separate lines, I dislike the primary system: in fact, I think it’s nuts.
So I have no problem with tactical voting.
One of the twists of the Mississippi primary was that the candidate actually courted crossover voters. Unlike Operation Chaos. But given #2, it doesn’t really matter from my perspective. I would do away with the primary system, bring back the smoke-filled room, and institute a system of multi-party proportional representation. Voters should vote their preferences and not have to make complicated strategic decisions about electability: that’s a job for specialists. My plan would provide both greater and more meaningful choices in the ballot booth.
I would dispute that. I think the whole point of tactical voting is you don’t want the person you’re voting for to win.
eta: By winning, I mean the actual election to hold office. In many cases, people tactically vote in a primary for a candidate they want to win that primary.
They’ve thought of that. It tends to produce extremist candidates who fail in the general election. So then TPTB take steps to dilute the primary voting pool with independents et al. Which opens the door to strategic voting. But apparently the influx of cross-party strategic voting is offset by the dilution of true believer voting. It’s a bit of a mess.
The Supremes have weighed in and have struck down some laws that mandate cross-party primaries. Scalia was particularly concerned about tactical voting.
At any rate, I’m not interested in fixing the primary system: it’s a bad design and should be scrapped altogether.