that if one is registered undeclared (independant) you may not vote in the presidential primary? Being a resident of NH this is especially irritating.

I am left with the option of changing my voter status for this election, and then changing it back to undeclared (I refuse to have a solid party affiliation) afterwards.

I find this really annoying.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I have missed the deadline for changing affiliation for voting in the primary.

This is especially stupid because if you are unregistered you can register to vote (for whatever party) the day of the primary. Like, at the voting place.

The logic here is beyond me. Maybe I am just not understanding something here? Bleh.

Edit: just found some fine print that says I can change my affiliation prior to the primary.

:wave: independent fo\' life

i\'m so glad we don\'t register down here! now, if you want to vote in a primary (or a caucus), you have to sign a piece of paper affirming that you are a rep or dem for that primary/caucus and that\'s it.

now, that being said, the gop here is really strict about who gets to sit in on their meetings, but that\'s only because one time this young man was at one of their rallies and was even chosen to be in a campaign commmercial. turns out, though, that i, ummmm, i mean he, was working for the dem\'s campaign at the time and they had to pull a fairly effective ad that ended with the governor and the candidate with their arms around this extremely handsome and intelligent young man leading him off to republicanland.... ever since then, they really closed ranks.

but anyway, party affliation is an old, out-dated institution that is used more for control than for anything productive. if you\'re in one of those states that requires it, i doubt it\'ll go away anytime soon, but it really is an antiquated system...

I register and re register based on the primary that I feel my vote will do the most good.

but you guys are seeming to say that registering for a party is the only way this can be done. again, plenty of other states don\'t use this at all and it works fine for them. yes, you run the risk of having a swarm of opponents show up and vote for some schmuck who\'ll never win, but since these caucuses and primaries are held locally, most activists know each other or at least can recognize faces. the ONLY reason to register for a political party is so that that party can claim a certain level of power. \'we have over three million reps in the state\' or whatever. doesn\'t matter in any other, real world terms. like was said above, registering doesn\'t require you to vote for anyone, it only gives clout to a state\'s party machine. so get rid of \'em. hell, the majority of americans no longer affliate themselves with any one party any more (though the bush years certainly have helped polarize large segments of the population), so why try to pigeon hole them?

that if one is registered undeclared (independant) you may not vote in the presidential primary? Being a resident of NH this is especially irritating.

I am left with the option of changing my voter status for this election, and then changing it back to undeclared (I refuse to have a solid party affiliation) afterwards.

I find this really annoying.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I have missed the deadline for changing affiliation for voting in the primary.

This is especially stupid because if you are unregistered you can register to vote (for whatever party) the day of the primary. Like, at the voting place.

The logic here is beyond me. Maybe I am just not understanding something here? Bleh.

Edit: just found some fine print that says I can change my affiliation prior to the primary.

Ok, so I am also a registered independent in NH. What is this fine print and what do I have to do to vote in the primaries?

i think those numbers are skewed, because those only take in to account the voters that actually *have* to register party affliation. and, a little more towards the point i was trying to make, even if you are a rgistered dem, that doesn\'t mean you have to vote dem. therefore, party affliation is meaningless. sure, i usually vote a straight dem ticket, but i wouldn\'t register as one. and this comes from a guy who worked for the state party for 3 years! because registering for a party only helps the party.

and yes, i think (and can support through polling i did as campaign manager) most people have stopped affliating themselves with one party or the other, unless you were particularly moved by clinton or bush. even then, most folks will make an exception for a particular candidate that they find \'acceptable\' on the other side. strict party loyalty is a thing of the past, for the most part. now, they may generally trend in one direction or the other, but voters today are *far* more independently minded than a summation of what registered party affiliations will show you. as a result, i helped get a guy elected out in missouri by telling him to take dem off his signs. we went with a very atypical race where he had several different \'issue signs\' made up, but with no party affiliation. if they supported his position, they voted for him. now, again, he was an atypical candidate (pro-life dem who accepted no campaign contributions, for example) but he un-seated a five term incumbent republican in a heavily republican district because people liked his stance on the issues and his party became moot to them. he stayed in office until stepping down last year by using the same tactic. if more candidates would do this, you\'d see people voting far more across the spectrum than we do today (even though folks do cross the spectrum a lot already). but they\'re not allowed to. the party loses their power if that happens.


and yes, i think an independent should be able to vote in any primary they want because who\'s to say where their favorite candidate might fall? what if i\'m an independent and really want richardson as my candidate. now, he\'s not running in the top of the dem pack, but is a perfectly viable candidate who may have appeal to more than just the party regulars. why shouldn\'t he be given as many primary votes as he actually can accrue, instead of just how many primary votes registered dems give him? wouldn\'t it be a much more realistic account of voters preferences? why does it seem mandatory to exclude people from the process? oh yeah, because if you allow anyone in, the parties themselves lose control. which they don\'t want, so they make people register where ever they can.

excuse me, what??? virginia doesn\'t have a primary??? [shakes head sadly]

ok, well to jocelyn\'s problem, yes, that is how she should deal with it. she should register, then unregister. unless of course, party affiliation was done away with, in which case she could just vote as she pleases in the primary and not have to bother with any hassle.

now, i\'m sorry if i came across as condescending or something, but i am trying to give you real world examples of an antiquated system\'s inneffectiveness. and for the record, every state has a primary (or caucus). virginia\'s is 2/18/08.