So disappointed in American politics

[MSNative]

I agree with those who say it is a reflection of our society. I rarely have political discussions anymore because they seem to devolve quickly into some calling someone who disagrees an -ist or hater or denier or fill in the blank. It is rare to find people who want to actually engage in thoughtful policy discussions in private. So it isn't surprising that those in public who are trying to get media and voter attention are doing the same thing. It's disappointing but not surprising.

[Laura Corin]

I agree that our primary system is just plain weird and quite American.  It gives the two political parties a huge amount of power and they're unlikely to want to change that.  And I don't think that Americans understand the primary system very well anyway.  The two political parties each pick their nominee with differing levels of input from voters in different states.  The number of people who voted for a particular candidate isn't necessarily the most important thing.  If the Republican convention is contested this year, I think some people might finally see more clearly how nominees are chosen- it's not always a democratic process, and it's not required to be.

 

I wish that the government would take over the primaries to tweak them into a two-round system. That seems like the simplest solution.

 

The UK way of choosing party leaders (who have the chance of becoming Prime Minister) is also arcane, but much, much shorter, and only involves dues-paying members of the relevant parties.

[Guest]

That is an interesting interpretation. I might have asked that question wondering if the world was really that insane or if my FB feed was really that insular, not at all because I wanted to vote for someone who is popular.

 

I keep my own FB feed very clear of political posts. I unfollow anyone who posts something that I find politically offensive (not that I disagree with, but that is offensive - typically an issue of tone). I also unfollow anyone who does a lot of political postings no matter their views or their tone. I use FB to keep up with friends not politics. However, this does make my FB feed very skewed. No one would be able to guess who the most popular candidates are from what is left on my FB feed. :lol:

True, but I am making some assumptions because I already know some of his (very far out) political beliefs. so I already know he's been defending Candidate X very loudly, but it seemed as if he was suddenly saying, "wait a minute. I thought X was very popular with people who vote my party, but now I'm starting to wonder if that's true at all."

 

I have unfollwed a couple of friends because I simply don't want to hear anything else about a certain person. However, I did not unfriend anyone who posted a response to a quote I put up on my wall, no matter how incendiary I thought their rhetoric was. In that case, I felt that I "started" the debate with a quote from a book that could be interpreted as related to a candidate. Plus, the angry rhetoric "friends" were not debating well and my rhetoric made much more sense. ;)

[Farrar]

I had to bow away from FB for a couple of weeks. I went back on and hid some people who are actually good friends in most times. I just couldn't take them any more. Especially the hypocrisy. And the shrill, "if only the corrupt media would pay attention to *my* candidate like they should and stop being uncritical toward all the *other* candidates then everything would be better!" As if.

[LucyStoner]

But on the other side of it - the parties aren't the government. I've seen a lot of people this election saying things about how the primaries are doing things that are "unconstitutional" which is hilarious. They're independent organizations. They don't have to follow the constitution any more than your local PTA does when they choose a president. They can use whatever methods they want (a slight exaggeration - there are some laws about this, but generally speaking - it's why there's such a patchwork of systems). Which, I get that people are mad about... But do we really want to ensconce the party system further by having the government take over the primaries? I don't know about that. In many other nations, the candidates are chosen by the parties themselves. They used to be that way here too. No one feels its undemocratic in those nations to not have primaries. You have actual elections instead.

Thank you. Being from Seattle, you can imagine who I see a lot of support for on many local friends' FB pages. Much of it circles around the idea that the media is pushing his opponent or that people are only voting for his opponent for (insert reason they deem dumb) or that the party apparatus is soooo undemocratic or even evil. People who couldn't even name the national party chair 6 months ago are calling her the worst sorts of names. Uh, it's a political party. Private organization. There's no legal requirement to hold primaries or caucuses. They do this so that it looks and feels democratic but it's not really. Nor do I even think it needs to be. Why should a private political party have to accept as their nominee someone whom the vast majority of committed party members don't think stands for their values?

 

One thing I find facinating is that there is a chance (albeit a small one) that both major parties will have a a nominee this year who actually is not really a member of the party.

Edited March 25, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Laurie]

 . Who would want to subject him or herself not to mention family to that?

 

 

I couldn't help laughing at this exchange:

 

Candidate A:   "My mother is the strongest person I know!"

 

Candidate B:  "She should be running."

 

It seems to me that the candidates are very willing to use their families.  But I get so sick of hearing the same thing over and over about their parents' occupations!   :nopity:

[JadeOrchidSong]

The two most "popular" candidates on dem and rep sides are NOT what I want to vote for. Choose the lesser of two evils? I guess not. If they end up on the ballots, I will stay home and choose not to vote.

[creekland]

I had a conversation with one of the gov't teachers at school about this election last Monday.  We mused that the last time it seemed to get the way it is now in our country, we ended up settling it with a Civil War.  That's a very short synopsis of part of our conversation, of course, but we found it both ironic since we live near Gettysburg and scary knowing that history tends to repeat itself.

 

She certainly has a lot of material to teach with this year - and for years to come.  She feels this will be an election that is talked about academically for decades - esp pending where it leads in the future with other elections.

 

We both know who we won't vote for no matter what, but have no idea who we will vote for.  

[justasque]

The two most "popular" candidates on dem and rep sides are NOT what I want to vote for. Choose the lesser of two evils? I guess not. If they end up on the ballots, I will stay home and choose not to vote.

 

That would be giving away your vote, and potentially standing by while a candidate you feel is wrong for the job - perhaps VERY wrong - gets into power.

If you don't like the top two candidates, and there's not a third-party candidate to choose, then at least write in someone else.  

[SKL]

I feel this is the first time I've seen both major parties trying to disenfranchise the working class.

 

Seems nobody really wants the USA to be a democracy any more.

 

I am hoping it gets better after the conventions.

 

Though I've been unhappy with politics for a long time now.

[JadeOrchidSong]

That would be giving away your vote, and potentially standing by while a candidate you feel is wrong for the job - perhaps VERY wrong - gets into power.

If you don't like the top two candidates, and there's not a third-party candidate to choose, then at least write in someone else.

True! I do hate to be passive. I will write in someone else even though there seems to be no hope of the person winning.

[Farrar]

When I was in college, I worked briefly with a young woman who was from... ugh... this sounds so bad, but I can't remember exactly... somewhere in west Africa. One day she gave me quite an earful about how infuriated she was to discover that most Americans don't vote. How dare they, was the gist of it.

 

Looking at the demographic data in the polls, some of the candidates this year who have been most divisive are also drawing the most new voters. I have *such* mixed feelings about that.

[HS Mom in NC]

What I want is a process that assumes a voter wants to be informed and thoughtful.  This may not be the case for many voters, but it is for me.  I want substance and depth.If I had the power to change things, I would start with:

 

1. A Super Tuesday National Primary Vote. 

No more strategic voting in late states for who's still in and viable.  On one day everyone in the US gets to cast their vote for the person they truly want. No more voters in late states being denied the right to vote for their candidates because they've already dropped out.

 

2. Real debates designed to cover more depth.

 

If we're going to have 12 debates anyway, why aren't we covering 1 topic and the constellations of issues related to it in more depth at each debate before people vote in the primaries?  There would have to be a cap on the number of people running (probably 4 or 5 maximum) and I haven't worked out how to select them yet.

Debate #1- Meet the candidates. 

Each candidate gets a solid 30 minutes of air time (not counting commercial breaks) telling us about him/herself, his/her political philosophy and his/her policy priorities.  No moderator. No reporter asking specific questions that the reporter chose, just a half hour of each candidate letting us know where s/he's coming from and where s/he want to go. 

Debate #2-Domestic Policy Debate

 

Each candidate gets a solid 30 minutes on what they want to see stay the same and what they want to see changed and how and why it should change. No interruptions with a reporter. No interruptions from other candidates. One microphone they take turns using and when it's not your turn you're back stage.

Debate #3-The candidates respond to what the others said in the Domestic Policy Debate

Each candidate gets a set amount of time to respond to what other candidates have said in the previous debate. They even get to (GASP!) think about it and prepare for it before hand rather than shooting from the hip. Again, one candidate at a time with a microphone.  When you're time's up, you shut up and leave the stage.

Debate #4-Economic Policy Debate
Debate #5-Candidates respond to what the others said in the Economic Policy Debate

Debate #6- Military and International Policy Debate

Debate #7-Candidates respond to what he others said in the Military and International Policy Debate

Debate #8-Law Enforcement and the Courts Policy Debate

Debate #9-Candidates respond to what he others said in the Law Enforcement and Courts Debate

Debate #10-Social Issues Debate

Debate #11-Candidates respond to what the others said in the Social Issues Debate

 

Debate #12-Final Remarks Debate

 

Each candidate gets to make whatever last comments s/he chooses.  It's the final plea for votes the week before the Super Tuesday National Primary vote.

 

[J-rap]

I heard an interesting talk about politics these days and the move to more extreme views.  The speaker blames it partly on cable TV.  He was joking about it at first, but as he went on, there was actually some logic to it.  He talked about when he was growing up in the 50's 60's, and there were only two or three major TV channels, news programs had to be careful about what they said, be truthful, and stay toward the middle.  (if for no other reason, for competition's sake.)  So, you grew up hearing what was going on in a way that helped you know about the "other side" yet not really think they were too far apart from your own side.  You didn't think of them as your enemy.

 

As more and more channels came to be, you could begin to pick and choose which one you wanted to listen to, and naturally you'd listen to ones that aligned with your views.  Whether they were accurate or not.  This reaffirmed your views, and caused them to become narrower and narrower.  

 

This has made for people who align themselves with narrow views that often aren't completely true or realistic, who don't care anymore about compromising, and think of the other side as their enemy.

 

Food for thought.

[Farrar]

Debates are supposed to be on a theme. Candidates and current events tend to derail that.

 

I definitely don't want to see more debates. A short campaign season and fewer debates that are aired on multiple media platforms (none of this only for cable subscribers stuff) would be better, I think.

[Reefgazer]

This is the first year since I've been voting that I will be writing in a candidate, and I have been voting for 35 years.  The pickings are very slim and low-quality this year. 

True! I do hate to be passive. I will write in someone else even though there seems to be no hope of the person winning.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

Debates are supposed to be on a theme. Candidates and current events tend to derail that.

 

I definitely don't want to see more debates. A short campaign season and fewer debates that are aired on multiple media platforms (none of this only for cable subscribers stuff) would be better, I think.

 

Which media platforms?

 

Youtube had the complete debates.

[chiguirre]

David Brooks wrote a very thoughtful piece today. I don't usually agree with much of what he writes but I think he gave a very good analysis of one party's circumstance.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/opinion/the-post-trump-era.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

 

This oped actually ties in well with classical ed since he spends a bit of time on Kuhn's theories of paradigm shift.

Edited March 25, 2016 by chiguirre

[hornblower]

 

As more and more channels came to be, you could begin to pick and choose which one you wanted to listen to, and naturally you'd listen to ones that aligned with your views.  Whether they were accurate or not.  This reaffirmed your views, and caused them to become narrower and narrower.  

 

Search engines feed into that as well. Unless you clear your search history completely (& search only while not logged into any platforms), your search engine will give you increasingly tailored results based on your previous clicks. So if you lean to reading certain sites, you get more of 'that' type, which would tend to reaffirm biases. 

 

[Seasider]

David Brooks wrote a very thoughtful piece today. I don't usually agree with much of what he writes but I think he gave a very good analysis of one party's circumstance.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/opinion/the-post-trump-era.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

 

This oped actually ties in well with classical ed since he spends a bit of time on Kuhn's theories of paradigm shift.

Thanks! That was good!

[Rosie_0801]

One thing I find facinating is that there is a chance (albeit a small one) that both major parties will have a a nominee this year who actually is not really a member of the party.

 

That can happen?  :confused1:  :confused1:  :confused1:

[ktgrok]

That can happen?  :confused1:  :confused1:  :confused1:

 

Sort of. One of the Democratic candidates was previously an independent, although he has always "caused with the Democrats", in other words, he was an independent but not really. 

 

The person in the Republican party being spoken of is technically a member of the party I assume, but many say that it is in name only. 

 

[LucyStoner]

That can happen? :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

Only in America.

 

Each of the major two parties has a candidate who has not represented themselves as part of that party with any sort of consistency. One has served in the Senate as an independent for years. Today he sued the party that he is running to represent. One has zero political experience and has long held views all over the map and ~4/10 people in the party he is running for have indicated that if he is the nominee and on the ballot in the general election, they will be inclined to seriously consider not voting, voting for a minor party candidate, mounting a third party push with a more mainstream member of their party or even voting for the other party's candidate.

[Rosie_0801]

Only in America.

 

Each of the major two parties has a candidate who has not represented themselves as part of that party with any sort of consistency. One has served in the Senate as an independent for years. Today he sued the party that he is running to represent. One has zero political experience and has long held views all over the map and ~4/10 people in the party he is running for have indicated that if he is the nominee and on the ballot in the general election, they will be inclined to seriously consider not voting, voting for a minor party candidate, mounting a third party push with a more mainstream member of their party or even voting for the other party's candidate.

 

That's hilarious.

 

But probably only because I'm not American.

 

 

Editing because I think you all need some huggy smilies.  :mellow:   :grouphug:  :grouphug:

Edited March 25, 2016 by Rosie_0801

[creekland]

That's hilarious.

 

But probably only because I'm not American.

 

 

Editing because I think you all need some huggy smilies.  :mellow:   :grouphug:  :grouphug:

 

I used to think it was hilarious.  Now I find it scary.  I thought finding it scary was solely because I live in this country, but since then I've consulted with some of my international friends.  They're fearful too.  The US, whether we like it or not, has a bit of influence on this planet.

[Laura Corin]

I used to think it was hilarious.  Now I find it scary.  I thought finding it scary was solely because I live in this country, but since then I've consulted with some of my international friends.  They're fearful too.  The US, whether we like it or not, has a bit of influence on this planet.

 

I'm worried.

[LucyStoner]

Sort of. One of the Democratic candidates was previously an independent, although he has always "caused with the Democrats", in other words, he was an independent but not really.

 

The person in the Republican party being spoken of is technically a member of the party I assume, but many say that it is in name only.

 

Actually, there are some major differences between caucusing with a party and being a member of the party. Relationships and fundraising for starters but there are other implications. It is not generally the case that party members sue their own party. (Note I am just stating information and not condemning the candidate. I am still wholly undecided on who I will caucus for in less than 20 hours!)

 

As for the other party's not-actually-a-party-member candidate, he has claimed to be a member of different parties over the years (major and minor) and holds to no known party orthodoxy. He ran in the party where he could market himself the best. It wasn't because of any sort of actual alliance with the party. I don't think he gives a fig about the party at all.

 

Neither of these candidates has racked up a meaningful amount of support from their party leadership or elected officials. That is telling and, for some, a good thing. For others though it really weakens their candidacies.

Edited March 25, 2016 by LucyStoner

[creekland]

ps  The scary part isn't 100% the candidates, though those get the front line news.  The scary part is often that so many Americans see nothing wrong with what is going on, including the violence.  Different views?  Common.  It's been going on since the beginning of time.  No big deal (sort of).  Violence encouraged?  Scary.

[LucyStoner]

I made donations to both of the candidates in my party's race this week just to see if how the website and fundraising system workes would illuminate me on their campaigns. No such luck each was just as annoying as the other.

 

At this point I may flip a coin. For me each of the candidates in my party has some pluses and some big fat minuses. I've never been undecided this late in the season. I am the person who convenes my caucus here and I may cast my vote for undecided (which is in fact an option here, lol).

Edited March 25, 2016 by LucyStoner

[JadeOrchidSong]

NM

Edited March 25, 2016 by JadeOrchidSong

[LucyStoner]

I believe many supporters of the popular candidates have lost common sense. They do not see logic any more. It is like being blindly in love, or infatuatedly in love of their candidate that anything he/she does (be it lying, cheating, bullying), is totally acceptable or completely justifiable or ignorable just because. Hope you know what I mean.

What I was most struck by was in listening to the supporters of the candidate who has the lowest politifact truthfulness rating and spurs media coverage with just plain nasty outrageous rhetoric is that many said they thought the outrageous comments were just taken out of context or "of course he doesn't mean them."

 

I've seen various shades of the same thing for other candidates' supporters from either side.

 

Honestly, it is the supporters of one of the candidates in my party's race that turn me off more than the actual candidate, lol.

 

I agree that a lot of people seem to be operating as if their guy or gal farts rainbows and spends their free time rescuing newborns from burning buildings.

Edited March 25, 2016 by LucyStoner

[ktgrok]

I made donations to both of the candidates in my party's race this week just to see if how the website and fundraising system workes would illuminate me on their campaigns. No such luck each was just as annoying as the other.

 

At this point I may flip a coin. For me each of the candidates in my party has some pluses and some big fat minuses. I've never been undecided this late in the season. I am the person who convenes my caucus here and I may cast my vote for undecided (which is in fact an option here, lol).

 

If you're caucusing for my party, PM me and I can tell you who to caucus for  :lol:

 

Seriously though, I seem to be in the very very very small minority (on this board anyway) who is thrilled with a particular candidate and was very excited to vote. Mind you, that candidate lost in my state, badly, but with proportional representation in the primary for my party I was able to feel I helped at least. 

[freeindeed]

It's the worst I've ever seen. It's quite depressing.

[Guest]

What I was most struck by was in listening to the supporters of the canidate who has the lowest politifact truthfulness rating and spurs media coverage is that many said they thought the outrageous comments were just taken out of context or "of course he doesn't mean them."

 

I've seen various shades of the same thing for other candidates' supporters from either side.

 

Honestly, it is the supporters of one of the candidates in my party's race that turn me off more than the actual candidate, lol.

 

I agree that a lot of people seem to be operating as if their guy or gal farts rainbows and spends their free time rescuing newborns from building burnings.

 

Word.

[ktgrok]

What I was most struck by was in listening to the supporters of the canidate who has the lowest politifact truthfulness rating and spurs media coverage is that many said they thought the outrageous comments were just taken out of context or "of course he doesn't mean them."

 

I've seen various shades of the same thing for other candidates' supporters from either side.

 

Honestly, it is the supporters of one of the candidates in my party's race that turn me off more than the actual candidate, lol.

 

I agree that a lot of people seem to be operating as if their guy or gal farts rainbows and spends their free time rescuing newborns from building burnings.

 

That I can understand....I think I support that candidate, but there are some extremely rabid fans willing to go way over the top. Lots of conspiracy theories...some of which are possibly true, but they aren't ALL true and the way people are acting isn't helping. 

[LucyStoner]

If you're caucusing for my party, PM me and I can tell you who to caucus for :lol:

 

Seriously though, I seem to be in the very very very small minority (on this board anyway) who is thrilled with a particular candidate and was very excited to vote. Mind you, that candidate lost in my state, badly, but with proportional representation in the primary for my party I was able to feel I helped at least.

I have listened to friends on both sides. I have attended events for both candidates. I even met one of them briefly years ago.

 

I actually was telling a friend the other day that if I could vote for zombie FDR or zombie Dwight Eisenhower, I very well might.

 

There are so many great people who could have run but didn't. I wish there was more solid information on VP picks because bluntly, a kickass VP option is the only thing just now that will sway me.

[ktgrok]

I have listened to friends on both sides. I have attended events for both candidates. I even met one of them briefly years ago.

 

I actually was telling a friend the other day that if I could vote for zombie FDR or zombie Dwight Eisenhower, I very well might.

 

There are so many great people who could have run but didn't. I wish there was more solid information on VP picks because bluntly, a kickass VP option is the only thing just now that will sway me.

 

I agree totally. If the person in my party whom I'm not supporting gets the nomination (likely), there had better be a great VP to get me fired up. It's the only thing that will. 

 

I'd also be very excited to see who my choice would pick. 

[MEmama]

If you're caucusing for my party, PM me and I can tell you who to caucus for :lol:

 

Seriously though, I seem to be in the very very very small minority (on this board anyway) who is thrilled with a particular candidate and was very excited to vote. Mind you, that candidate lost in my state, badly, but with proportional representation in the primary for my party I was able to feel I helped at least.

I'm another one who has a candidate who represents my beliefs. :)

 

Our caucas was *insane* there were so many people. The place was simply mobbed, they were so far over capacity. It was awesome. :)

[LucyStoner]

I'm another one who has a candidate who represents my beliefs. :)

 

Our caucas was *insane* there were so many people. The place was simply mobbed, they were so far over capacity. It was awesome. :)

Yeah, caucus capacity. I am so flipping irked at my party. They have planned for about 50,000 people for tomorrow. Dudes, remember the last time you did that back in 2008 and we got north of 200,000 people?

 

In 2008, I convened a precinct with about 25 voters in a tiny janitor's office. And that oh so generous amount of space was procured only because I got there early and moved the sign from my then assigned precinct location to the only semi empty room I could find. It was not my first rodeo and I could see plain as day that we were not going to fit or be able to discuss anything at a double long lunch table they wanted us to share with 3 other precincts. I then went and corrected the check in people about where to send my precinct and left signs where we were orginally supposed to be. Every one was relocating because no one could hear a darn word if they didn't.

 

ETA- to a great degree I feel my beliefs overlap with both of my options. It's not ideology that is tripping me up this year. It's far more nuanced than that. But if I go into that, this definitely gets partisan so mum's the word.

Edited March 25, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Farrar]

I'm amazed this thread didn't get shut down yet. I think it means we should force all the people in politics to deal with each other semi-anonymously on the internet and not allow them to mention their party affiliation. And let SWB moderate them. ;) Stuff might get done. Maybe.

[HRAAB]

I agree totally. If the person in my party whom I'm not supporting gets the nomination (likely), there had better be a great VP to get me fired up. It's the only thing that will. 

 

I'd also be very excited to see who my choice would pick. 

 

Reading some of these posts requires decoding skills.  I think I'm with you, however, I'm not even sure a great VP will get me fired up if it goes the way that appears most likely.  Then again, it won't matter much since my state's electoral votes will go to the other party's candidate.

 

I have never sat out an election since I voted the first time in 1980, and I don't intend to start at this point.  But I never remember feeling so disconnected and disgusted with the whole process.  I feel overloaded and have quit listening for the most part.

[snowbeltmom]

ps  The scary part isn't 100% the candidates, though those get the front line news.  The scary part is often that so many Americans see nothing wrong with what is going on, including the violence.  Different views?  Common.  It's been going on since the beginning of time.  No big deal (sort of).  Violence encouraged?  Scary.

 

Yes, it is very scary.  Last summer, I thought it was great that our city was selected to host the National Convention, as we could use a boost to our economy.  Now, I wish we would have lost the bid.

 

 

[SeaConquest]

I changed my political party to No Party Affiliation because I was so disgusted. If things continue on the present course, this will likely be the first time that I vote for a Presidential candidate not from my usual party. 

[Farrar]

ps  The scary part isn't 100% the candidates, though those get the front line news.  The scary part is often that so many Americans see nothing wrong with what is going on, including the violence.  Different views?  Common.  It's been going on since the beginning of time.  No big deal (sort of).  Violence encouraged?  Scary.

 

I can definitely think of times in American politics when violence was encouraged by some prominent political leaders. The last time that it was this overt was probably during the Civil Rights era when a number of leaders on both sides encouraged violence. I think you can draw some parallels... though it's different too, obviously. But that means many of us here have lived all our lives without seeing political violence on this level - or, rather, there's been plenty of political violence, but never egged on by leaders with this much prominence. It's... really surreal.

[Rosie_0801]

I changed my political party to No Party Affiliation because I was so disgusted. If things continue on the present course, this will likely be the first time that I vote for a Presidential candidate not from my usual party. 

 

So you have to be registered as a something?

 

It seems so strange to me for voting to be non-compulsory but affiliation to be mandatory.

[snowbeltmom]

So you have to be registered as a something?

 

It seems so strange to me for voting to be non-compulsory but affiliation to be mandatory.

 

In my state, you just have to be a registered voter.  When you get to the polls, you can request which party ballot you want.  I have a number of friends who are registered for party X, but requested the ballot for party Y this time around because they wanted to cast a vote against the front-runner in party Y.

 

[justasque]

So you have to be registered as a something?

 

It seems so strange to me for voting to be non-compulsory but affiliation to be mandatory.

 

In my state, you have to put down a party when you register, but you can put "independent".  However, you can only vote in the primary of your party, so if you do put independent, you can't vote in either of the two main parties' primaries, which means you've pretty much given up your voice at that stage of the process.

 

This year, lots of independents are changing to a major party, so they can vote in the primary.  Also, lots of people are changing from one party to the other, almost ten times as many as usual.  It's hard to know what that means, as some people switch parties not because they now consider themselves aligned with that party, but as a strategy to influence the other party's candidate.  (The idea is to vote for someone in the other party that your own party's candidate can more easily beat, assuming you are confident your candidate can win the nomination without your vote.)

 

To make it more complicated, in some states the primary votes are proportional - If the state has ten primary delegates (who take the state's wishes to the national convention where the candidate is nominated), and two candidates, A and B, get 40% and 60% of the state vote respectively, then they get 4 delegates and 6 delegates respectively.  In other states where the winner takes all, Candidate B gets all 10 delegates and Candidate A gets nothing, even though A got 40% of the vote.  (It's actually WAY more complicated than that.  And some of those delegates have to vote for the candidate they are associated with and some don't, and if there's not a majority after the first round it's even more complicated 'cause they can vote for whoever they want, more or less.  And I've probably got some of that wrong, but you get the idea.)

[Reefgazer]

I'm surprised you've lasted this long.  :)  I hit my disgust threshold about 20 years ago and declared Independent then.  I don't know where I go from here.

I changed my political party to No Party Affiliation because I was so disgusted. If things continue on the present course, this will likely be the first time that I vote for a Presidential candidate not from my usual party. 

 

[Amira]

Primaries and caucuses are about choosing party nominees for different positions, so that's why affiliation matters in some states. Affiliation doesn't matter in the general election because it's not run by the parties.

[Mom22ns]

So you have to be registered as a something?

 

It seems so strange to me for voting to be non-compulsory but affiliation to be mandatory.

 

Some states have you declare a party and you can only vote in the primary of the party you declare yourself a member of. My state has open primaries. You just walk in and say which ballot you want. There is no way to declare a party here. I think it is a bit weird how different the states are, but I'm glad I'm in an open state.