Posted on 03/13/2006 8:22:38 AM PST by smokinleroy
Not wishing to declare party affiliation at poll
By John Reihart
Sherman
As a home owner and a card carrying registered voter, I was quite taken back when I stepped up to vote and was told by a woman to decide if I was a Republican or a Democrat; there, with others looking at me, I panicked.
Were they all Democrats or Republicans? What happens if I “guess wrong?” Is there a wrong? I said, I don’t want to choose before I step into the voting booth, but was told, pick one or the other. What is this, I thought.
I vote for the individual and not always along party lines. But I was denied the right to vote because I did not exclaim my party affiliation before voting. I will see a lawyer because I have been denied the right to vote.
As a regisetered independent, I don't find being excluded from elections that I am paying for "humorous".
Yes, but you have the option to vote by declaring a party. The political parties have a right to only have their members choose their candidates. I'm sure your parks department has some activities you are excluded from, even though you pay taxes, because you don't meet the requirements, i.e, youth sports, male or female clubs. This is the same thing. You don't meet the requirements, but in this case by your own actions.
Retirement is great isn't it?
Enjoy getting active. It can be fun.
States handle primary voting in many different ways. In Maryland, many conservatives stay in the Democratic party because there is almost never more than one entrant in the Republican primary. The above mentioned conservatives were the "Democrats for Ehrlich" that helped us get a Republican governor for the first time in decades. An Independent can still vote for school board members. If anyone doesn't like the way his state handles primaries, he can try to change things.
It doesn't matter. They keep a record of it anyway. If you vote in a democrat primary or runoff during the election cycle, you've committed a crime, whether you got your card stamped or not. You've picked a party, and now you can't sign Kinky's or Carole (name of the week)'s petition, you can't vote in the other party's primary, and you can't vote in their caucus.
That's why you get a new voter registration card before the start of each cycle.
It isn't the only way to get in.
Right, I said that in a later post.
No, actually they aren't.
Actually, they are.
I'm a registered independent, and I am excluded from voting UNLESS I declare myself a member of some party, which I am not about to do---yet my tax dollars go to paying for the election in which I cannot vote.
The only one stopping you from voting in a primary is you.
SD
Said "right" is a new invention arising from a crappy Supreme Court decision (which I put in the same "bin of insanity" as the Court failing to find the "campaign reform" legislation by McCain, et al, unconstitutional).
I disagree with the decision, hope the court comes to its senses and overturns it.
"I'm sure your parks department has some activities you are excluded from, even though you pay taxes, because you don't meet the requirements, i.e, youth sports, male or female clubs. This is the same thing. You don't meet the requirements, but in this case by your own actions."
Sorry, but "parks activites" aren't in the same class as voting for candidates. If "I" pay for election, then I should have the right to vote in said election. Otherwise it is "taxation without representation".
No, actually they cannot. Since the Supreme Court has "made new law" in this area, it cannot be overturned by "mere voters". A large majority of voters are in favor of the "open primary"---but the Dem and 'Pubbie power stucture aren't.
I don't see it that way. And a majority of the total voters agree with me, since in my state of residence the "open primary" has been voted in several times in one flavor or another and struck down by the courts.
Simply put, this is another case of the courts "making law" where they have no business intruding.
What are you talking about? Why do you think a political party choosing its candidates by a vote among its members is a "new invention"?
If "I" pay for election, then I should have the right to vote in said election.
You do have the right to vote in any primary you would like to. You just have to register (in some states) or declare (in others) which one you would like to vote in.
SD
I don't see it that way.
Of course you don't. If you want to vote in a primary, simply register for it. This is not a difficult or cumbersome thing.
And a majority of the total voters agree with me, since in my state of residence the "open primary" has been voted in several times in one flavor or another and struck down by the courts.
That's cause open primaries are asinine and they violate the right of free association. You have to be pretty clueless politically to desire open primaries.
How does it help a political party in selecting its candidates to have followers of a competing party help choose?
Political parties are expressive organizations and it defies sense to have those unwilling to burden themselves with the crushing task of registering in the party decide whom the party runs for election.
SD
For the very good reason that the Republican nominee in an election should be someone supported by Republicans, not someone supported by a few liberal Republicans, a bunch of independents, and some Democrats who crossed over. Not many here would be happy if an open primary gave McCain or Giuliani the Republican nomination. Even worse are the elections where people cross over to intentionally support the weaker candidate in the opposing party's primary.
Exactly. Presumably, the parties want to select the candidates favored by their memebers, not the results of political shenanigans.
SD
Ah, yes---the old "right to free association". Where, I wonder, was that "right", when Southern whites didn't want to associate with Southern blacks in restaurants???
Nope--not clueless--just independent. I came from one state that moved from a "party primary" to "open primary" (Louisiana), and moved to another state that had an "open primary" and was forced by the courts to implement a "party primary" against the wishes of the vast majority of the citizenry (Washington). The "open primary" is simply BETTER--less corruption, better candidates, and better results.
If the parties want a "party exclusive election process", then THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT. If it's supported by tax dollars, it should be open to all taxpayers.
Perhaps, though if any party can have a primary, it's not limited to just Democrats and Republicans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.