Exactly why are registered Republicans allowed to vote in the Democratic primary? Seriously, Texas and now Indiana (and maybe others...) have had Republicans flocking to make sure Hillary wins the state for the Democrats since McCain already has his party nomination wrapped up. Luckily, the people in Texas voting the delegates somewhat corrected the problem. I'm not sure how it works with Indiana. What does this say about Hillary if her party's opponents want her to win the nomination? I wonder what her paying supporters think?
Regardless of why this is allowed (state or party rules), unless you are an independent, you should not be able to vote in whichever party you want, it goes against all rational sense. The people switching sides *may* want the candidate they vote for to win, but they should have to disavow their party affiliation before the voter registration deadline. I guess "fair" doesn't really count much in politics anyway, so maybe it's just fun for them while we all get screwed.
4 comments:
I crossed over to vote for Obama. Really, the only reason to register for one party over another is to vote in that party's primary. There's really no other opportunities or obligations by being declared for one party or another.
Crossover voting just eliminates the paperwork.
It eliminates paperwork, but opens up the possibilities for abuse. When you register for a party, you are essentially reserving you vote in the primaries for one of the schmucks in your party.
Ben Franklin and George Washington were both anti-party, so was TJ but he essentially started the first 2nd party (and for good reason.) I guess my point is that ALL Americans should be independent. Anyone who says "this party is always better" is delusional, and is effectively anti-American in my book. The corollary is that states and parties must allow all independent voters to vote for anyone on the ballot.
To vaguely paraphrase* my good friend Super Pat, "Absolutely never be absolute about anything." (at least where humans are concerned.)
* SP always likes to say "Moderation in everything, including moderation."
"...it goes against all rational sense..."
So does trying to shoe-horn everyone into one of two compartments. Thankfully, neither party is against motorcycling (yet...).
Hey, not sure if anyone still reads the old comments, but a two party system - even though we allow more - isn't always a bad thing. Imagine many or no parties, where consensus building requires catering not to two parties, but to hundreds of independent representatives. In such a large country, nothing would get done. Party "confinement" has allowed government to get on with governing and has kept the transition of leaders fairly straightforward. One way of looking at it anyway...
Post a Comment