thebreakfast.info
General Discussions => Spunk => Topic started by: jocelyn on November 06, 2007, 09:53:18 pm
-
What ever happened to the ONE AND ONLY PBFans politcal pissing contest thread? (http://thebreakfast.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1325&highlight=pissing)
PBfans.com...good times.
-
when i a went to the table to get my name crossed off, there were two older ladies there with two books of names along with their rulers and red pens. i noticed that my wife had already been there to vote according to the first book as her name was crossed off in red. her name was NOT crossed off in the second book. when i asked why i was told "oh...this is the book that matters. that one doesn\'t really count." um......ok?
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: very true. and having worked a polling station or two, i wholeheartedly agree. i\'m just talking about something simple like crossing off the name and then turning in the resgistry to the state BoE and let them do some data entry.
or, again, just get rid of party affiliation requirements and anyone can vote in any election. yes there is the potential for misuse, but i\'m telling ya, in reality it works just fine. :)
-
I worked in the nursing home industry for 5 years, and I\'ve seen sharper folks workin\' a jiggsaw puzzle on the dementia wing then at most polling stations.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
well I for one plan on writing Ronnie Spears in on my ballot. Why you might ask? cause that motherfucker can HOLD IT DOWN
rotfl
jking, you want to add a level of complexity to the voting process that I frankly don\'t think the current crop of blue haired poll workers can handle. I worked in the nursing home industry for 5 years, and I\'ve seen sharper folks workin\' a jiggsaw puzzle on the dementia wing then at most polling stations.
-
well I for one plan on writing Ronnie Spears in on my ballot. Why you might ask? cause that motherfucker can HOLD IT DOWN
-
well, the easiest solution is a simple one. reps and dems have primaries on seperate days. if you vote for one, your name is taken off the rolls to vote for the other. that way, one vote per person, so that they can vote for their candidate of choice and that\'s it.
the other choice, of course is to let the independents vote for their favorite dem and rep candidate. this opens a whole new slew of issues, and frankly, i don\'t think could be controlled that well. if you let everyone vote in both primaries, the fear becomes loaded votes. however, since so few folks actually vote in the primaries, its not like you\'re gonna have a whole slew of folks coming out of the wood work just to cast impish ballots. everyone would still only get one vote, after all, and in the grand scheme of things, even if there were more reps in one district that all cast kucinich votes, they\'d be balanced out by some other primarily dem district that voted overwhelmingly for romney. unfortunately, though, what this would end up leading to is a race for gotv (get out the vote). this is already a major undertaking on election day for all sides, but without the control of only being able to vote one time, the extra money that would be required to raise to have more resources available to get your people out to the polls twice before the main election would further screw the process and beholden candidates to even more outside parties. HUGE money goes into gotv efforts already. if those efforts got trickled down to \'smaller\' elections, then the fundraising will get completely out of hand (its argueably there already!)
and i think you\'re thinking of undecideds, as opposed to independents. subtle difference, but an important one. the undecideds are the one upon whom many elections hang. since they wouldn\'t have a primary candidate to vote for (or else they\'d be decideds), it would still come down to them giving the final race some spice.
-
which really doesn\'t happen as much as you\'d think, but ok.
then why not allow undecideds/independents in? people known to be from the opposing side would be excluded to get rid of the crappy candidate votes.
maybe i\'m just being too idealistic, but living in a state where party affiliation isn\'t required, i\'m just confused why folks are so dead set for giving the two party system more power? don\'t folks want better candidates and more choices?
which really doesn\'t happen as much as you\'d think, but ok.
then why not allow undecideds/independents in? people known to be from the opposing side would be excluded to get rid of the crappy candidate votes.
maybe i\'m just being too idealistic, but living in a state where party affiliation isn\'t required, i\'m just confused why folks are so dead set for giving the two party system more power? don\'t folks want better candidates and more choices?
i ask again....does the independant want the right to vote in both primaries?
Yes. Yes I do. :thumbsup:
But wait, they wouldn\'t be able to vote in both primaries, just one or the other.
Although, having independents vote in the primaries, would probably take some of the suspense out of the election.
Typically, the independent vote decides the election. If you found out after the primaries that 75% of independents voted for the republican candidate... wouldn\'t that make his election be close to a lock?
-
which really doesn\'t happen as much as you\'d think, but ok.
then why not allow undecideds/independents in? people known to be from the opposing side would be excluded to get rid of the crappy candidate votes.
maybe i\'m just being too idealistic, but living in a state where party affiliation isn\'t required, i\'m just confused why folks are so dead set for giving the two party system more power? don\'t folks want better candidates and more choices?
i ask again....does the independant want the right to vote in both primaries?
Yes. Yes I do. :thumbsup:
-
which really doesn\'t happen as much as you\'d think, but ok.
then why not allow undecideds/independents in? people known to be from the opposing side would be excluded to get rid of the crappy candidate votes.
maybe i\'m just being too idealistic, but living in a state where party affiliation isn\'t required, i\'m just confused why folks are so dead set for giving the two party system more power? don\'t folks want better candidates and more choices?
The more I think about this, the more I think you might be right.
-
which really doesn\'t happen as much as you\'d think, but ok.
then why not allow undecideds/independents in? people known to be from the opposing side would be excluded to get rid of the crappy candidate votes.
maybe i\'m just being too idealistic, but living in a state where party affiliation isn\'t required, i\'m just confused why folks are so dead set for giving the two party system more power? don\'t folks want better candidates and more choices?
-
ok, just to continue a now hypothetical debate, why shouldn\'t everyone be able to vote for every party\'s primary? wouldn\'t that cull the best candidates from all parties, instead of having to choose between the candidates the parties chose for us?
Because I would vote for the worst candidate from the opposing party
-
never said "passing interest in politics". just refering to a "passing interest" in a primary election involving a group that "you" (the figurative you) don\'t belong to. the validity of the two party system is another debate all together. i ask again....does the independant want the right to vote in both primaries? if the third party gets enough support, it also will have a primary (i hope this comes to pass) and then we can all jump around depending on which candidate interests us that year. ;)
ok, just to continue a now hypothetical debate, why shouldn\'t everyone be able to vote for every party\'s primary? wouldn\'t that cull the best candidates from all parties, instead of having to choose between the candidates the parties chose for us?
-
Meh I just didn\'t word my original post very well. I just re-read it and is is pretty misleading. This is what happens when I am pissed and post without proof reading.
-
damn....just when i thought i had an articulate, well thought out argument that was winning! ;)
-
No. No. No. This whole thread was started on a misunderstanding on my part. I read the NH voting registration page not very thoroughly (it is a pretty confusing page.) I was irritated not by the fact that I have to be affiliated with a party to vote in the primaries, but by my misconceprion that I was unable to switch affiliations because I had missed a deadline. The wording is confusing, and it seemed as though I had missed the deadlinde to switch affiliations for the primary. This irritated me because an unregistered voter can walk into the voting place on the very day of the vote and register. I thought that this was bullshit that they could register at last minute but I was past a deadline to change affiliations. Turns out that that is not the case. get it? My bad.
-
i ask again....does the independant want the right to vote in both primaries?
Yes. Yes I do. :thumbsup:
-
never said "passing interest in politics". just refering to a "passing interest" in a primary election involving a group that "you" (the figurative you) don\'t belong to. the validity of the two party system is another debate all together. i ask again....does the independant want the right to vote in both primaries? if the third party gets enough support, it also will have a primary (i hope this comes to pass) and then we can all jump around depending on which candidate interests us that year. ;)
-
i think its like this~ since her primary choice is affiliated to a party, she needs to register as a member of that party to be able to support her choice. then she will switch back to independent, since she\'s not a supporter of either party, just the individual candidate.
i would say that if your not a member of that....or any party, that it\'s not really any of your business other than passing interest.
so, just because you don\'t agree with one party over the other, you only have a "passing interest" in politics and the outcomes aren\'t "any of your business"?? i could agree with this if there were more than two viable parties. but since all of the real candidates are essentially forced to come out of one of two camps, people who don\'t agree with the camps still have every interest (arguably even more than a party person) in who wins the primary. otherwise that seems tremendously close-minded.
can you tell i\'m feeling fiesty today???
-
i\'m not sure i understand the problem. you don\'t want to be affiliated with a particular party....or any party for that matter, but you want to have a say in who that....or any party nominates for president. i would say that if your not a member of that....or any party, that it\'s not really any of your business other than passing interest. the idea of wanting to vote in a parties primary strikes me as being the opposite of an independant. you may as well just change your affiliation every election to whichever parties primary interests you the most. why bother registering independant at all? is it just to say that you are? should you be able to vote on BOTH primaries? like i said.....i\'m confused.
-
hey, we were part of Super Tuesday, dammit!!! [hangs head low]
and i agree, there\'s nothing better than learning stuff so you can argue better! ;)
-
excuse me, what??? virginia doesn\'t have a primary??? [shakes head sadly]... and for the record, every state has a primary (or caucus). virginia\'s is 2/18/08.
Pfft! Phase 4 primary. Like it matters by then.
Just kidding. Good way to learn about something, research it while your trying to argue a point on .info.
-
Sorry if it sounded patronizing Jocelyn. Just trying to lay out the logic of my argumant......
-
The question here is about the primary. VA doesn\'t have a primary, so how YOU declare yourself has different considerations then Jocelyn.
I guess the to answer Jocelyns original question. As the primary approaches, she should look at the field, decide which side has the candidate she wants to support, then declare herself to that party... if she wants to vote in that primary. If not, stay an independent until the next go around.
Yeah that was the conclusion I already came to.
And thanks Dweasel for telling me what a primary is and what it is for. I really had no idea. :rolleyes:
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?
It is pretty misleading in the beginning (hence my original post) but if you don\'t jump the gun and read it all the way through it explains it all pretty clearly.
http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm
-
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.
-
The question here is about the primary. VA doesn\'t have a primary, so how YOU declare yourself has different considerations then Jocelyn.
I guess the to answer Jocelyns original question. As the primary approaches, she should look at the field, decide which side has the candidate she wants to support, then declare herself to that party... if she wants to vote in that primary. If not, stay an independent until the next go around.
-
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.
-
The primary is not about voting for a president; it\'s about voting for which candidate the party will put on the real ballot.
Just to be clear, the primary is to determine which presidental candidate your state will support at the parties national convention.
Iowa Caucus
Michigan Primary [2]
Democratic Nevada Caucus / R
Republican South Carolina Primary
New Hampshire Primary
Democratic South Carolina Primary
Florida Primary
West Virginia Republican Presidential Convention
California Primary /
Arizona Primary
Republican Nevada Caucus
Washington State Primary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History)
-
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?
-
Letting an independent/ undecided voter into a primary does little to help party leaders determine who the majority of their constituents want to be represented by. If you\'re an independent, why should you get to vote in their primary? It\'d be like letting democrats vote in the republican primary.
Take this short survey: http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460 (http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460)It showed me which presidential candidate agreed with my beliefs on the hot button issues (definitely wasn\'t the person I thought it would be). It also showed me that I was clearly more aligned with one political party.
in \'04 there was over 200 million eligible voters. Of these,
55 million were registered Republicans
72 million registered Democrats
42 million were registered independents/No Party
I know the last couple of years have been volatile, but do you really think that party registration has swung that far to independent? I doubt it. Does anyone have recent numbers? I\'d be interested in seeing them.
-
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?
-
Just a dissenting voice here....
The primary is not about voting for a president; it\'s about voting for which candidate the party will put on the real ballot. If you\'re not a member of that party, I don\'t think you should be able to participate in the primary. If you were a registered dem, would you want a wave of republicans voting in your primary - some of whom might do so just tovote for a politically unviable candidate?
Pick a party or form a new one. Does it matter which one you choose? Not really. Your registered affiliation means absolutely nothing about who you "should\' vote for. it just allows you to participate more directly in the process.
In Europe, every distinct philosophie is represented by its own political party. that\'s why they have "coalition governments" made up of 15 different party reps. Here, the two main parties are clearing houses for many interest groups, so being a dem doesn\'t nec mean you are pro-choice (as an example); you might agree with 3 out of 5 policies on the platform, or none of them.
This
-
I register and re register based on the primary that I feel my vote will do the most good.
-
Just a dissenting voice here....
The primary is not about voting for a president; it\'s about voting for which candidate the party will put on the real ballot. If you\'re not a member of that party, I don\'t think you should be able to participate in the primary. If you were a registered dem, would you want a wave of republicans voting in your primary - some of whom might do so just tovote for a politically unviable candidate?
Pick a party or form a new one. Does it matter which one you choose? Not really. Your registered affiliation means absolutely nothing about who you "should\' vote for. it just allows you to participate more directly in the process.
In Europe, every distinct philosophie is represented by its own political party. that\'s why they have "coalition governments" made up of 15 different party reps. Here, the two main parties are clearing houses for many interest groups, so being a dem doesn\'t nec mean you are pro-choice (as an example); you might agree with 3 out of 5 policies on the platform, or none of them.
-
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...
-
That sucks. Here in Mass (or at least in my town, maybe they bend the rules) I can be registered Independent and walk in on primary election day, switch it up to Democrat, and then on the way out of the polling booths I can switch right back to Independent. Which is what I did in 2004.
I understand why they don\'t let people outside a party vote for that party\'s primary though.
That said.. Edwards \'08!
-
:wave: independent fo\' life
-
I\'m also registered as an independent and will do so probably until the day that I die. I am so sick of political parties and the bullshit that goes on with them--so much so that I am willing to forfeit my right to vote in the primaries.
-
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.