My understanding is that in Alaska there’s a single ballot for both parties (and presumably third parties as well). A voter picks a candidate from the list to vote for; so a voter would have a choice between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders on the same ballot. Then whichever candidates from each party get the most votes become the nominees for that party in the general election.
This raises the question of how the candidates are designated. Could a candidate choose to run as both a Democrat and a Republican? And if they got the most votes would they be the nominee for both parties and run unopposed in the general election? Do voters have the option of voting for “John Smith: Democrat” and “John Smith: Republican” or is it one spot for “John Smith: Democrat/Republican”?
Texas has an open primary (you can choose which one you want the day of the primary), but which one you choose is a matter of public record. If you have reliably voted in Democratic primaries for years but cross over and vote Republican in one (or vice versa), you are about to get inundated with political advertisements since it looks like you are open to persuasion. This is the main reason I’ve never crossed over, although some years it’s been tempting to do so.
NC allows people in no party like me to pick a party to vote for on the day of the primary. In the case of a runoff I would have to stick with that party.
The “no party” group has been growing a lot in recent years here. As it stands now there is nothing to lose by being in the group.
An example of the effect of this was Rep. Cynthia McKinney losing in the primary due to crossover voting (according to polling).
In the old days of Democratic Party dominance in Georgia, Republicans frequently voted in Democratic primaries since none of the Republicans stood much of a chance and they wanted to have an effect on something. And sometimes they wanted to pick a loathesome Democrat who had (supposedly) no chance of winning. This is how Lester Maddox became Governor.
Note that Georgia also requires that candidates win with a majority of votes, so there are a lot of run-offs. If you voted in one party’s primary, you can only vote in the ensuing run-off for that party.
In addition, the Presidential primary votes are held separately from the State primaries.
It is generally believed. based on polling, that Democrats crossing over to vote for McCain in 2008 turned him from also-ran to front runner. The same might happen this year with but who they might vote for is unclear. Trump might have seen like a good idea several months ago, but probably not anymore.
For most offices, California’s election system is actually a two-stage general election. All of the candidates are on the same ballot, regardless of party. The top two vote-getters in the first (“primary”) election then run against each other in the second (“general”) election. It is possible for both candidates in the second election to be from the same party. The state uses this system for all statewide and federal offices except the U.S. presidency. This system has been in place since 2011.
Getting back to the OP: it would be hard to influence the outcome of an opposing party’s primary. It would take an organized effort to get large numbers of voters to cross over and vote for an opposing candidate, and presumably it would be for someone they couldn’t stand. By doing so, they’d be giving up their ability to influence the selection of their own party’s candidate.
In Georgia primaries, you have to tell the poll worker which party you’re voting for. You are then directed to a voting booth with that party’s candidates. If someone wants to vote for the opposite party as proposed in the OP, it’s as simple as that. I did that in the last primary election so I could vote against certain people twice.
Weren’t there some concerns about this in the recent Labour leadership contest in the UK? I assume I’m getting some things wrong here, but I thought Labour had made it very easy to participate–for three pounds or something, you could have a vote. There was speculation that Tories would ante up in an attempt to get the most “unappealing” candidate in as Labour leader. And in fact the winner was the leftmost Labour leader in a long time, and already appears to be having trouble leading his party.
According to real clear politics, Kasich has the worst chance against Clinton (7.5 lead to Clinton) so presumably the cross over Dems could vote from him.
Does it matter then? If everyone did that an incompetent from the other party is still the nominee, easy winner in the election, and then you have a lot of total incompetents elected to congress… oh, wait…
You have an excellent point, however that doesn’t answer the question. Could the democrats or a PAC decide to spend millions of dollars on advertising in safe republican states urging democrat voters to register republican and vote for Kasich? Is that illegal in any way or just “not done” ?
All states matter in the primary - not just the states that would vote for your party in the general election. So you don’t want to tell your own supporters to vote in the other party’s primary - you want them to vote for you.
But there are cases of candidates running ads in the opposing party’s primary, to support the candidate that would be easier to beat in the election. Claire McCaskill is a recent, clear example.
Sure but as per the current election, you can look at it and say “polls show that either Clinton or Sanders can beat Kasich, but if Trump or Rubio is the Republican nominee then its much closer”. In which case in terms of pure game theory you are probably better off spending your money trying to encourage your voters to push Kasich’s numbers up. You’re not wasting your vote since either one of your candidates will do in this circumstance.
My family moved to Delaware County (Delco), PA in 1955. Delco was overwhelmingly Republican. In PA, each county had a county commission consisting of three commissioners. But each party could propose only two candidates, thus ensuring minority representation. Theoretically. In fact, 10,000 Republicans would register as Democrats and vote in a Republican as one of the two “Democratic” candidates. Then in the general election, those 10,000 would vote for the fake Democrat and thus there was no minority representation. Of course, this all depended on there being an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the county.
It’s just not broadly done. Americans don’t usually respond to super-open political maneuvering of that sort very well. I’m not aware of any case law in which such a strategy has been viewed as desirable. Plus, as I have already answered–most States don’t have open primaries, so you’d have to go through the process of switching parties just to do this. In some States that’s easy to do on election day, in others, it isn’t. Plus Americans at a voter level don’t have a lot of concern what the national party tells them to do. If they did, primaries wouldn’t be competitive in the first place. What you’re positing would be a scenario where one party’s leadership was able to manipulate their voters into doing x thing, but history shows the voters don’t really care what the party leadership wants.
Look at the current Republican primary. Jeb Bush has the most endorsements of party leadership by a moderate margin over Rubio, and by a country mile over Trump (who essentially has no mainstream endorsements.) And yet, aside from the pile of money he has, Bush is doing terribly and has very poor poll numbers basically in every primary state that matters. It’s a big assumption that significant numbers of voters would even listen to some ephemeral party leadership trying to get them to “brigade” into another party’s primary.
Plus, picking the “worst opposing candidate” isn’t that easy. For my money I actually think Kasich would give Hillary more trouble in the general than Trump could. For one, he’s very likely to win Ohio, where he’s governor, won in a landslide reelection (including with decent numbers of black votes.) The Democrats have a baked in electoral college advantage, and losing Ohio largely guarantees a Republican candidate cannot win the electoral college. So Kasich is probably a much worse scenario for Hillary than Trump. I think Kasich would still lose, but I think he could make the electoral college close.
I’m not sure what you mean by “high 90s from 100”, but I had always understood that across most of Europe pretty much no one aside from political junkies knows who their EU representative is.
As for “state representative” that’s a vague term in the United States.
In the Federal legislature we have the Senate, each State elects two Senators. They are elected in a statewide popular vote. We also have the House of Representatives, whose members are called “Congressmen”/“Congresswomen”. They actually aren’t representatives of a state, but a congressional district, which is a geographic area within a state that is drawn to represent roughly equal numbers of persons, as possible, across the state and country.
Generally Senators are better known than Congressmen, but a lot of Americans probably couldn’t name both of their Senators. A lot of Americans can’t name their local congressman, either. probably in numbers similar to the UK and knowing their local MPs.
Each State also has a legislature, and most of those are bicameral. Even fewer people know their representatives in the state legislature than in the Federal legislature. Which is a shame, because on most day to day issues your state legislature has a bigger impact on your life than the U.S. Congress.
The law doesn’t generally recognize parties.
So where the state provides for “OPEN” primaries, it means that you vote for the PERSON.
What parties do is UP TO THEM ,so where the state has party internal primaries,
then any member of the party may vote…
So what can happen is that a citizen can be members of TWO PARTIES.
Using fake names to avoid apperance of bias, or promotion, if the Tiger party tries to brigade/stack the Lion party, then the Lion party basically just says the new nembers have no right to vote, and btw, if they dont turn up for the next three meetings, they are going to be ejected and banned from the Lion party.
So basically either the state enforces one vote in the primary, or the party just enforces membership criteria for its votes ; while they may opt to allow late enrollment , if brigading started up , they’d turn around and vet membership when taking votes.
Some states may regulate party membership - if only for the purpose of closed primaries - to prevent the idea of organised brigading at the late stage … It can’t prevent organiszed brigading if it the effort was done early on , but then the effort might well be totally useless and the party would appear to be crazy for trying to do it … “hey , join the tigers, cause we are like, crazy dude!”… Doesn’t work real well. I guess in the past the stink of such talk (“I lost because they brigaded me !” ) caused the states to ensure primaries are stink free.
They’re called Representatives. I have no idea why “Congressman” annoys me so much, but everyone seems to use it when referring solely to the House of Representatives, whereas Congress consists of both houses.