s/o Voting in primaries question

[Joules]

From umsami's thread:

     If you ever wondered if you would have spoke up against Anti-Semetic talk in 1930s Germany...    

 

 

 

 

I'm independent as well, although for whatever reason I have voted for more Democrats, overall. I wonder how many independents will register Republican to vote for someone else in the primaries this year? 

 

 

This is an interesting question.  So I have lived in multiple counties in my state, some Dem and some Rep.  All of the local candidates run as one or the other depending on the majority in that county.  Local races are decided in the primaries.  

 

So if I wanted to have a say in the sheriff's race in the old county, I had to vote Dem in the primaries.  If I want to have a say in the local races here, I have to vote Rep in the primaries.

 

This makes for interesting ethical decisions for people who are voting cross-party (and it's been discussed from both sides.)  Please don't mention specific candidates or parties, but if this were the way voting worked in your state, what would you do (or think is right)?

 

Vote in your own party's primary even if you get no say in local elections?

Vote cross-party and skip the questions for the national party, since you know you will never vote for one?  

Vote cross-party for the one who you would really be most likely to vote for if that was your only choice?  

[ETA: I mean as if these were your choices in the general election]

Vote cross-party for the least desirable candidate hoping the worst will win the nomination and your party will win the election?

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Joules

[creekland]

I've registered in our "local party" just for this reason.  I've been registered in other parties when we've lived in other areas.

 

I don't mind too much as I can vote whichever way I want to in the national election and my votes, in general, seem to get split anyway.  Being in the local party gives me some say in local politics.  Without it, I'd get no say.  Being registered independent would give me no say in local elections too (due to races getting decided in the Primaries).

 

My own views are darn near center preferring one party for certain things and another for others.  It can make it tough to vote.  I have to look at oodles of things and decide which category I care more about (or think the winner could do more about).

[Joules]

The big election here is always school board. We pay more in school tax than local tax, both property based. That election does not have a caucus or a primary, so it doesnt matter what party I register as.

 

Register for the party that represents your views, if there is one. Presenting yourself as a member of one party when you dont have those viewpoints isnt ethical.

So if school board positions were decided in primary elections of a different party, you'd just skip voting?

[creekland]

Register for the party that represents your views, if there is one. Presenting yourself as a member of one party when you dont have those viewpoints isnt ethical.

 

No party represents my view 100% or even 80%.  I can't even imagine just buying a party line without significant change in any of the parties.

 

I refuse to not have a say in elections just because I don't buy into any one party.  If our elections are decided in the primaries, so be it.  That's the way politics works in this area.

[Butter]

Other.  I am not registered as any particular party.  I've lived in three states and only one (Maryland) makes you register as Republican or Democrat if you want to vote in the primaries and then makes you vote in that party's primary only.  I actually declined to affiliate when I lived there and so couldn't vote in primaries at all.  Neither Virginia nor Texas require you to register as any particular party and you just ask for which party's primary you want when you show up to vote.

 

Funny, when I lived in Virginia, I was once on a "after the debate" news show as an "undecided" because I was not registered as Republican or Democrat.  They assigned everyone who was not registered as one or the other as "undecided" (we were all actually decided lol), those registered as Republican as for the R candidate and those registered as Democrat as for the D candidate (spoiler alert: that's not how it actually was for all of them).  We were encouraged to give statements in a certain way as our "reaction" to the debate.  I was supposed to focus only on the physical appearance of the candidates.  It was so ridiculously choreographed and all but scripted.  Yup, folks.  News.  Or something like that (this was not a local news show - it was one of the major networks in Washington DC).

 

Anyway, when it comes to local stuff here in SA, it's not by parties so party primaries don't matter.  When we were getting our new mayor in San Antonio, they'd write things like "she usually voted with democrats" or "he voted with republicans 60% of the time" because they don't run as a democrat or republican.

[SKL]

I think in our state you can declare affiliation at the primary and change it whenever you want.

 

Although I lean a certain way, I am open to vote and have voted for people on the other side, so I don't believe party affiliation is like citizenship, i.e., you don't have to renounce the one to accept the other.

 

I'm not sure if I've ever voted in "the other" primary, but it is an option I would be OK with ethically.  In a recent election, the candidate I supported was not opposed in the primary and I didn't actually have a preference between the two candidates on the other side.  I wasn't really sure which of them would have a better chance against my candidate in the general election.  I probably skipped voting in that primary.

[creekland]

 Local elections usually dont have primaries. 

 

Just adding a note that this is definitely not true in other areas of our country, though of course, it can be true in your area.

[Joules]

Just adding a note that this is definitely not true in other areas of our country, though of course, it can be true in your area.

 

Yes, I was really asking what would you do if you are put in this odd voting situation.

 

Say I am Rep.  Two candidates for sheriff (and every other office) are on the primary Dem ticket.  Let's say I have a definite preference and like one of them.  If I skip the primary I get no say, because the elections are pretty much over in the summer primary (occasionally there is an odd token candidate in the other party, but usually not.)

 

Actually I am independent like Creekland, so would have had no say in local elections in either county, if I had chosen not to vote in primaries.  I wish more local elections were non-partisan.

[vonfirmath]

I'm having a hard time understanding how a local election is won in the primary -- do you mean because you know only one party's candidate is going to win in the local election, or because the other party is not even putting a candidate up for that spot?

 

Around here, even though local races will be on primary ballots -- the only way the race would be "run" in the primary was if the person ran unopposed in the general ballot. And at that, they are still on the general ballot.  However, to switch primaries to make a "decision" in that one race would be to give up my ability to vote for which candidate I preferred in many other races I also want to have a say in.

 

 

At the primary level, I will vote for the candidate I prefer out of those on the ballot. Then at the general, I vote for the candidate I prefer out of those on the ballot.

 

I am MUCH more likely to vote for someone at a local level who is not affiliated with my preferred party than at the national level.  But I do not consider myself a one-party voter. I vote for (or against) a particular candidate, based on the choices offered.  Not based on their party affiliation.  Yes, my preferred candidate will much more often be in one party than the other. Platforms matter.

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by vonfirmath

[Joules]

I'm having a hard time understanding how a local election is won in the primary -- do you mean because you know only one party's candidate is going to win in the local election, or because the other party is not even putting a candidate up for that spot?

 

Yep, I guess you could write in, but the local election ends up being lots of races with one candidate each.

[vonfirmath]

Yep, I guess you could write in, but the local election ends up being lots of races with one candidate each.

 

Then as I said, to switch parties to vote for those candidates would mean giving up the ability to vote for other candidates in the other party.  I do not consider there to be anything particularly wrong about voting in the other  party's primary because there is a candidate there you really want to support.  It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when people talk about doing it to try and put someone in NOT that they would want that person to win, but because that person would be a weaker opponent to their preferred candidate. (Choice 4 above). I believe that is unethical. But the evil of making someone declare a party and stick to it is worse in my mind than the loophole otherwise left, I think. (I occasionally go back and forth on this one.) I would not choose to do it because primaries are not about just ONE race. They choose candidates for many races.

Edited December 8, 2015 by vonfirmath

[Joules]

 I would not choose to do it because primaries are not about just ONE race. They choose candidates for many races.

 

Fortunately that has not been my issue: either ALL of the local candidates are Dem or ALL are Rep depending on the county (iow, the county is so one-sided that no one would consider affiliating themselves with the other party.)  

 

ETA: We don't register as a particular party.  They just ask you to pick a ballot when you come in.  When I first started voting, they always said not to worry about which party, just choose the one with the candidates you want to vote for.  I think it is a weird system.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Joules

[Murphy101]

I'm registered independent.

 

It's like registering as "vote of no confidence" in my opinion.

 

I guess I'd regret it if they had a great candidate I wanted to back. So far that's not been a problem.

[Butter]

I'm having a hard time understanding how a local election is won in the primary -- do you mean because you know only one party's candidate is going to win in the local election, or because the other party is not even putting a candidate up for that spot?

 

In some states - like Utah - elections are won in the primary.  My best friend is actually considering registering as a Republican (she's registered Democrat currently) because of this.  She is VERY against a certain state politician.  She knows for a fact whichever person wins the Republican primary is who will fill the position he is currently in.  Democrats have no chance in state-wide UT elections.  So she wants to vote against him when it matters - the primary.

[creekland]

I'm having a hard time understanding how a local election is won in the primary -- do you mean because you know only one party's candidate is going to win in the local election, or because the other party is not even putting a candidate up for that spot?

 

Sometimes the other party doesn't run a candidate and sometimes they do.  If/when they do they'll get about 1/3rd of the local vote in the GE, so never win.  It's extremely rare that the other party runs two candidates in their primary.  I can't think of the last time that happened when it wasn't a "vote for two" situation.  The only competitive primaries locally are all the winning party.

 

Naturally, this changes once one gets to our county, state, and national elections.  However, local gov't affects our lives so much more than any of those other categories, so it makes far more sense to me to be concerned with who our local winner will be.  Therefore, I need to vote in the primary for that party.  In the GE, I can vote for whoever I like.  The winner comes from the GE, but locally, that's merely a technicality.

 

Half (or more) of my GE votes tend to go with this party anyway lately.

 

It can be true?

Are you saying that your area does not use the petition, caucus, primary, then general election sequence? We do not have caucus or primary for school board, as the candidates are running representing the union or the public, not a particular political party.everyone that sucessfully petitions to be on the ballot is on the ballot, top X get X seats. Political offices all follow the above sequence.

 

Sorry... the "can be true" was meant for a generic area, not yours obviously.

 

In our area, anyone wanting to run for office locally gets a petition and signs up with a party.  Winners are decided at the primary.  Those winners will advance to the GE.  The powers within the party can pick those they want to support among all those on the primary ballot, but that isn't common.

 

School board is pretty much always unopposed in our district, so I've no idea how that one would work.

[Word Nerd]

So no caucus, but a closed primary. Why not get that changed to an open primary?

 

You say it like it's a simple matter to "get that changed." Why should either of the parties excluding independent/unaffiliated voters like me change to suit us? I will continue to try and get our state's closed primary changed, but it's mostly a case of banging my head against a wall.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Word Nerd

[livetoread]

In our state, you can vote for either party in the primary, but once you ask for that party ballot, you are registered for that party. If you wish to remain as an independent, you cannot request a party ballot and vote in the primaries. 

 

It seems this might cut down on anyone's desire to cross parties for nefarious reasons, since they would then be considered part of that party - likely a horror too much to bear for someone motivated enough to try and mess with the system!

[Word Nerd]

I'm registered independent.

 

It's like registering as "vote of no confidence" in my opinion.

 

I guess I'd regret it if they had a great candidate I wanted to back. So far that's not been a problem.

 

This is the same for me, except that I will hold my nose and register for one of the main parties when my rep is up for reelection so that I can vote against him in the primary, where the race will be decided.

[creekland]

So no caucus, but a closed primary. Why not get that changed to an open primary?

 

And I'm supposed to do this how?  In a rural area that has been set in its ways for years?

 

It's seriously not worth my time or effort.  I can easily play the game and have my vote voiced in a way that satisfies me.

 

There are far more important things in my life and on our planet which I work to change.  Plus, my voice counts for more on those things because I'm treated as an insider - not someone who makes waves at any little thing. 

 

Changes like that, if they come, will come from someone on a more statewide level - not locally.

[6packofun]

I tend to vote mostly Republican, so I don't feel that there is an ethical conflict in my affiliating in order to vote in the primary this year for the first time ever.  I think it IS unethical to affiliate with the party you would NOT vote for (no matter who is on the ballot) in order to affect the outcome for that party's primary.  I think I said that right, but I'm not sure that's what you're asking.  LOL  

[Word Nerd]

In my state there are more than 2 parties.

Why should they change? Good question, and if you truly want an open primary, instead of lying about your party affiliation or choosing for some other reason, you will give voice to the reasons and persuade a majority. If you dont think its important, you wont put your time into it.

 

 

I believe I am wrong in what I stated above....for local, non school board, its petition, caucus, general. No primary, caucus takes its place.

 

So even though I do vote for party-affiliated candidates in the general election most of the time, you believe I am "lying" to affiliate with that party so I can vote in the primary even though I would prefer to remain independent? Interesting. I don't see it that way, obviously. I'm curious to know what percentage of a party's platform you think I would need to agree with in order to ethically affiliate with them for the primary. Basically, you're saying that independents can't ethically have any say in choosing their elected officials in states that are solidly blue or red and have closed primaries.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Word Nerd

[vonfirmath]

So no caucus, but a closed primary. Why not get that changed to an open primary?

 

From the other standpoint (at least in states where parties pay for their primaries) why can the state force them to allow those who do not want to be affiliated with them to help choose the candidates that will bear their label?

 

I remember this fight happened in Washington while I lived there. 

[Word Nerd]

If you are affiliated solely to affect the outcome of the election of a group that you cannot in good conscious stand up and declare yourself to be sharing beliefs with, you are acting unethically. You have to decide a percent based on based on your personal priorities and investigation of the issues. I dont. Changing parties solely to influence the outcome is not ethical. Whats next, gerrymandering? How about joining a church so you can destroy it from within? Ethical? Same thing, misrepresenting yourself for your own goals.

 

Who says I'm trying to destroy anything from within? When I vote in a primary, I'm trying to ensure that the better/less-evil candidate will win the primary (and eventually the general election, as it's already a foregone conclusion in my state which party's candidate will win the general election in my district—many times they run unopposed), the same as anyone else.

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Word Nerd

[Joules]

If you are affiliated solely to affect the outcome of the election of a group that you cannot in good conscious stand up and declare yourself to be sharing beliefs with, you are acting unethically. You have to decide a percent based on based on your personal priorities and investigation of the issues. I dont. Changing parties solely to influence the outcome is not ethical. Whats next, gerrymandering? How about joining a church so you can destroy it from within? Ethical? Same thing, misrepresenting yourself for your own goals.

 

But I don't think anyone is doing that.  Note that option has no votes in the poll.  I just included it because I've heard people joke about it.  I don't know anyone who's really done it.  Most people when forced to pick a ballot only vote for people they would consider in the general election.  In my case, if I hate both (or all) the candidates and would never vote for either, I would just skip that race (even if it wasn't a partisan primary.)  We can leave things blank.