NationStates Jolt Archive

first off, im very "liberal" on social issues and taxation, but not so much on international trade (kinda like clinton...i do enjoy a good blowjob). i would probably never vote for a republican. i think im gonna register republican when i turn 18. this means i get to vote in the republican primary for either a moderate guy or a guy whos gonna lose. not only that but i can write to my congressman and say dear mr. congressman, im a registred republican and i think blah dee blah dee blah. i think this has more of an effect on republican politicians. plus i get to piss off all my republican freinds.

first off, im very "liberal" on social issues and taxation, but not so much on international trade (kinda like clinton...i do enjoy a good blowjob). i would probably never vote for a republican. i think im gonna register republican when i turn 18. this means i get to vote in the republican primary for either a moderate guy or a guy whos gonna lose. not only that but i can write to my congressman and say dear mr. congressman, im a registred republican and i think blah dee blah dee blah. i think this has more of an effect on republican politicians. plus i get to piss off all my republican freinds.
You have to register as a republican?

You have to register as a republican?

Yeah, the American election system is confusing. :\

You have to register as a republican?

Yes. Most communities require that a Republican register with the local police before they can move to their neighborhood. I think it's called "Reagan's Law."

Yeah, the American election system is confusing. :\
I understand the electoral collage, but this just baffles my mind.

This is fucking Nazi Germany.

Yes. Most communities require that a Republican register with the local police before they can move to their neighborhood. I think it's called "Reagan's Law."
Deffinatly Nazi Germany.

WTF? And people call that freedom? democracy? What, the 'terrorist' admire that? I hate american. Its official.

I understand the electoral collage, but this just baffles my mind.

This is fucking Nazi Germany.

They apparently even have to register to vote at all. I mean, that's just silly...

Deffinatly Nazi Germany.

WTF? And people call that freedom? democracy? What, the 'terrorist' admire that? I hate american. Its official.

Either you missed the sarcasm, or you're being sarcastic yourself.

Really, I don't know anymore!!!

They apparently even have to register to vote at all. I mean, that's just silly...
Well I understand that in terms of 'no double voting', but this may jsut because we need to do that in Canada as well.

*shudders*

You guys are on crack for accepting that. Cant move into a naighbourhood unless your a republican?!

*edit*

Id like to remind eveyrone that sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet

Yes. Most communities require that a Republican register with the local police before they can move to their neighborhood. I think it's called "Reagan's Law."
??? what???

Either you missed the sarcasm, or you're being sarcastic yourself.

Really, I don't know anymore!!!
yeah i missed the sarcasm.

phew

ok so someone explain this to me.

There's a name for people with your beliefs, it's John McCain.

first off, im very "liberal" on social issues and taxation, but not so much on international trade (kinda like clinton...i do enjoy a good blowjob). i would probably never vote for a republican. i think im gonna register republican when i turn 18. this means i get to vote in the republican primary for either a moderate guy or a guy whos gonna lose. not only that but i can write to my congressman and say dear mr. congressman, im a registred republican and i think blah dee blah dee blah. i think this has more of an effect on republican politicians. plus i get to piss off all my republican freinds.

....That's it...infiltrate them and learn all you can...

Well I understand that in terms of 'no double voting', but this may jsut because we need to do that in Canada as well.

*shudders*

Sweden has solved this whole scary registration thing pretty easily. If you're 18 or over you get a "voting card" sent to you before an election. That's what you need to be able to vote. It can only be used once. Really simple.

....That's it...infiltrate them and learn all you can...
yeah how the hell did Carl Rove do that

You have to register as a republican?

Yes. Most communities require that a Republican register with the local police before they can move to their neighborhood. I think it's called "Reagan's Law."

My apologies, everyone. I seem to have gotten my facts messed up. It is not "Reagan's Law" - it's "Megan's Law"...... and when I said "Republicans" - I actually meant "Sex-offenders". Hope this clears everything up.

My apologies, everyone. I seem to have gotten my facts messed up. It is not "Reagan's Law" - it's "Megan's Law"...... and when I said "Republicans" - I actually meant "Sex-offenders". Hope this clears everything up.
:mp5:

I understand the electoral collage, but this just baffles my mind.

This is fucking Nazi Germany.

We only have to register with a party to vote in their primaries, where they choose what candidates to run against the other parties in the national elections. Anyone registered to vote can vote in the actual elections.

Sweden has solved this whole scary registration thing pretty easily. If you're 18 or over you get a "voting card" sent to you before an election. That's what you need to be able to vote. It can only be used once. Really simple.
Does it have any kind of security measures so that it can't be counterfeited? If so, that's a really simple and elegant system. *thumbs up*

first off, im very "liberal" on social issues and taxation, but not so much on international trade (kinda like clinton...i do enjoy a good blowjob). i would probably never vote for a republican. i think im gonna register republican when i turn 18. this means i get to vote in the republican primary for either a moderate guy or a guy whos gonna lose. not only that but i can write to my congressman and say dear mr. congressman, im a registred republican and i think blah dee blah dee blah. i think this has more of an effect on republican politicians. plus i get to piss off all my republican freinds.

Well... you'll be right in there with thousands of other Republicans, most of whom try to find someone that doesn't turn their stomach to vote for.
You might actually try getting active in the Party, this will offset the influence of the Fallwellites, and give you a good insight into why people choose to be Republicans (People who aren't Fallwellites, that is), a better insight than listening to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

If you're intent on doing something, do it the right way. My folks went from Dem to Republican in the late 1970's in part to try and keep another Nixon out.
"Moderate" Republicans are actually the "Majority" of Republicans, but they're not very well-organized, and they don't have much "Fire" driving their campaigns-maybe people like yourself can put some in. I've been toying with becoming a Democrat just because so far, the last two election-cycles, the Dems have put up "Phony Conservatives" instead of genuine Democrats.

there Need to be options. Having only the most extreem or artificial candidates to choose from is a serious drag. It would be nice to see some genuine moderates (not RINOs and DINOs, mind) on the tickets to choose from instead of a choice between an artificially-flavoured candidate whose record doesn't match his rhetoric, or a genuine nutball who'll either tax-and-spend us working people to death, or start yet-another-war while driving up the deficit and making bland statements about 'god'.

CG's right.

I vote Republican, but am more aligned with the Republican Liberty Caucus. - http://www.rlc.org/
The RLC Supports:

1. Lower and fewer taxes
2. The right to privacy
3. The right to keep and bear arms
4. Balanced budgets through spending cuts
5. Educational choice
6. Freedom of speech
7. Protection of property rights
8. Market-based health care
9. Alternatives to the drug war
10. All-volunteer armed forces
11. Term Limits
12. Sound monetary policies
13. Deregulation
14. Phase-out of foreign aid
15. Ending federal welfare
16. Private options to Social Security
17. Free trade Privatization of government functions
To me, that's the true Republican party.

ever heard of the LIBERTARIAN party?

www.libertarianism.org

good site

There's a name for people with your beliefs, it's John McCain.
McCain sounds like a very good candidate. What are his views on abortion and gay marriage and those types of issues? Do any of you know?

ever heard of the LIBERTARIAN party?

www.libertarianism.org

good site
The problem with LP is that they are too factionalized (even more than Dems and Reps) and can never get anyting done. Also, they're a little far out there even for someone with libertarian leanings like myself.

CG's right.

I vote Republican, but am more aligned with the Republican Liberty Caucus. - http://www.rlc.org/

Quote:
The RLC Supports:

1. Lower and fewer taxes
2. The right to privacy
3. The right to keep and bear arms
4. Balanced budgets through spending cuts
5. Educational choice
6. Freedom of speech
7. Protection of property rights
8. Market-based health care
9. Alternatives to the drug war
10. All-volunteer armed forces
11. Term Limits
12. Sound monetary policies
13. Deregulation
14. Phase-out of foreign aid
15. Ending federal welfare
16. Private options to Social Security
17. Free trade Privatization of government functions


To me, that's the true Republican party.

thats basically a more moderate stance of the Libertarian party...

CG's right.

I vote Republican, but am more aligned with the Republican Liberty Caucus. - http://www.rlc.org/

To me, that's the true Republican party.but the Republican Party only agrees with 3 of those things

ya, thats more closer to the LP than the Republican party

CG's right.

I vote Republican, but am more aligned with the Republican Liberty Caucus. - http://www.rlc.org/

To me, that's the true Republican party.

Hmm...

but the Republican Party only agrees with 3 of those things
No... you're thinking of the "neocons" which have gotten a heavy foothold in the party.

Hmm...
:confused:

but the Republican Party only agrees with 3 of those things

That's because the current Republican party is run by the neocon and religious right aspects of the party, rather than the moderate and libertarian aspects of the party.

Does it have any kind of security measures so that it can't be counterfeited? If so, that's a really simple and elegant system. *thumbs up*

The card is only valid in one electoral circuit, and the card is stamped with the circuit and the place where you are supposed to vote. So, it can only be used at the place designated, meaning the officials can easily catch any sort of attempt at using a card twice, as there is a list that you a crossed off of when you have voted.

When you vote through the mail or by proxy, the card is sealed with your ballot effectively barring its further use.

The card is only valid in one electoral circuit, and the card is stamped with the circuit and the place where you are supposed to vote. So, it can only be used at the place designated, meaning the officials can easily catch any sort of attempt at using a card twice, as there is a list that you a crossed off of when you have voted.

When you vote through the mail or by proxy, the card is sealed with your ballot effectively barring its further use.
Very, VERY nice! I'm going to have to research this further.

Thanks for the info! :)

first off, im very "liberal" on social issues and taxation, but not so much on international trade (kinda like clinton...i do enjoy a good blowjob). i would probably never vote for a republican. i think im gonna register republican when i turn 18. this means i get to vote in the republican primary for either a moderate guy or a guy whos gonna lose. not only that but i can write to my congressman and say dear mr. congressman, im a registred republican and i think blah dee blah dee blah. i think this has more of an effect on republican politicians. plus i get to piss off all my republican freinds.

So, let's see if I've got this right:

1. Officials who you don't agree with (but apparently the majority of Americans do, or else they wouldn't have won) are elected into power.

2. You get pissed off because the rest of us are obviously so stupid since we can't see that your views are clearly superior to ours.

3. Instead of rallying more people to your cause, you decide to be a bitch and sabotage the right of those who disagree with you to elect whomever they want to represent them.

You are a coward and an impediment to the democratic process. Now that's "fucking Nazi Germany."

McCain sounds like a very good candidate. What are his views on abortion and gay marriage and those types of issues? Do any of you know?

Well what a Republican says that his views on abortion and gay marriage are doesn't really matter. If they're moderate on either one they'll loose. That's why Bush was a total homophobe up until a week before the election and then again on November 3rd. You can't trust a single thing that they have to say on either one, you have to look at what they actually vote, and McCain seems to have decided to store his balls in a jar on Laura's nightstand, so you can't really peg his position on anything down these days.

So, let's see if I've got this right:

1. Officials who you don't agree with (but apparently the majority of Americans do, or else they wouldn't have won) are elected into power.

2. You get pissed off because the rest of us are obviously so stupid since we can't see that your views are clearly superior to ours.

3. Instead of rallying more people to your cause, you decide to be a bitch and sabotage the right of those who disagree with you to elect whomever they want to represent them.

You are a coward and an impediment to the democratic process. Now that's "fucking Nazi Germany."

Ya, how dare he think that he's entitled to participate in the Democratic process. His plan of registering as a republican just so that he can have a voice in the Republican party is just as despicable as all those freed slaves who joined the Democratic party back when the south was a one party state, just so that they could vote in the primaries.

Democracy is totally nazi facism. [/Sarcasm]

That's because the current Republican party is run by the neocon and religious right aspects of the party, rather than the moderate and libertarian aspects of the party.

I beg your pardon. To point this out is treasonous and seditious. You are undermining the government and giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. 9/11 changed everything, and if it taught us anything it's that we have a culture of life in this country and you should just shut the fuck up and vote republican. As Brittany Spears said, you should trust that the president knows what he's doing, and if America means anything at all, it means listening to trashy teenage Pop Stars.

If I were to register for a political party, it will probably be the Republican Party. While I don't like where the "religious right" is taking the party these days, the only way to change the direction of the party is to join up and change things around. I can't just sit on my ass and expect our politicians to shape up, as many of my countrymen do.

Sweden has solved this whole scary registration thing pretty easily. If you're 18 or over you get a "voting card" sent to you before an election. That's what you need to be able to vote. It can only be used once. Really simple.

Sounds like a good idea. I'll look into it.

But of course things are a bit simpler for an election in Sweden.

Sweden: 9,001,774 people; total area: 449,964 sq km

U.S.A: 295,734,134 people; total area: 9,631,418 sq km

Administration of national elections is a tad more complicated here.

Nonetheless, the voting card may be a superior method.

EDIT: Don't you still have an electoral register? That is what says who gets a voting card, right?

Well I understand that in terms of 'no double voting', but this may jsut because we need to do that in Canada as well.

*shudders*

You guys are on crack for accepting that. Cant move into a naighbourhood unless your a republican?!

*edit*

Id like to remind eveyrone that sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet

Actually, yes Canada you have to be a "registered voter"... But the Government have no right to know my official political leanings. I could vote Municiple, provincial and federal all completely different parties...

I believe the part that is "freaky" is that you register what party you are "going" to vote for. You know, to get the "perks" (whatever they may be)... In that sense, it is akin to wearing your politics or religion on your sleeve and jacket (as was the practise with Nazi Germany. Nationalists wore the flag, and had that armband thing, and Jews got the star of david aswell (for all it's perks and fun)

Actually, yes Canada you have to be a "registered voter"... But the Government have no right to know my official political leanings. I could vote Municiple, provincial and federal all completely different parties...

I believe the part that is "freaky" is that you register what party you are "going" to vote for. You know, to get the "perks" (whatever they may be)... In that sense, it is akin to wearing your politics or religion on your sleeve and jacket (as was the practise with Nazi Germany. Nationalists wore the flag, and had that armband thing, and Jews got the star of david aswell (for all it's perks and fun)

OK. The Nazi Germany references would be silly if they weren't so offensive.

One only registers to vote as a member of a certain party if you wish to vote in that party's primary. The primary is the party's internal election to determine who its candidates will be. Even, then this varies by state. Many do not require party registration and some all you to cross-ballots (vote in more than one primary at the same time).

There are undoubtedly other ways of running things. But it is neither asinine nor totalitarian to ask that only those who declare themselves members of a party vote to choose that party's candidates.

Got it?

So, let's see if I've got this right:

1. Officials who you don't agree with (but apparently the majority of Americans do, or else they wouldn't have won) are elected into power.

2. You get pissed off because the rest of us are obviously so stupid since we can't see that your views are clearly superior to ours.

3. Instead of rallying more people to your cause, you decide to be a bitch and sabotage the right of those who disagree with you to elect whomever they want to represent them.

You are a coward and an impediment to the democratic process. Now that's "fucking Nazi Germany."

To be forthcoming, if your people were exposed to balanced honest and frank discussion with regard to each other and to their true relations with other nations that all voting would be generally based on reason and this arguement would never occur. However, as the typical source of information is laden with leanings and slants and far to many opinions of truly subversive nature, the average American can have a different opinion of themselves (depending on your favourite news network) or a different opinion of the world (depending if you read news from the Imperialist State or from a Subject State, (Despot States, notwithstanding)).

So, basically, thats your issue. I believe the best way to bring about positive change would be to take public control over your media. Your corporations are the only ones winning from you not doing so. Everyone else suffers.

OK. The Nazi Germany references would be silly if they weren't so offensive.

One only registers to vote as a member of a certain party if you wish to vote in that party's primary. The primary is the party's internal election to determine who its candidates will be. Even, then this varies by state. Many do not require party registration and some all you to cross-ballots (vote in more than one primary at the same time).

There are undoubtedly other ways of running things. But it is neither asinine nor totalitarian to ask that only those who declare themselves members of a party vote to choose that party's candidates.

Got it?

It does indeed seem silly. Here Parties elect their own leaders. See, you don't vote for a person, you vote for a party...

And, I wasn't trying to be snippy/offensive, just helpful. .. .. Got it? ;P

It does indeed seem silly. Here Parties elect their own leaders. See, you don't vote for a person, you vote for a party...

And, I wasn't trying to be snippy/offensive, just helpful. .. .. Got it? ;P

You compared the voting system of some US states to Nazi Germany to be helpful? Pull my other leg.

Here, you don't vote for a party. You vote for a person.

There are lots of arguments why one system is superior over the other.

Name-calling doesn't help.

Sounds like a good idea. I'll look into it.

But of course things are a bit simpler for an election in Sweden.

Sweden: 9,001,774 people; total area: 449,964 sq km

U.S.A: 295,734,134 people; total area: 9,631,418 sq km

Administration of national elections is a tad more complicated here.

Nonetheless, the voting card may be a superior method.

It could all be managed at the state level, reducing the complexity (or even city level for metropoles).

EDIT: Don't you still have an electoral register? That is what says who gets a voting card, right?

I think they use tax records, which are excellent population registers. If you're in there, a citizen (or otherwise elligible to vote) and 18+, you get a card. If not, and you don't get a card, you phone your local tax office and they send one to you, after you've proven you're elligible of course.

EDIT: From http://www.val.se

"To be entitled to vote, a person must be registered on an electoral roll.

An electoral roll is compiled prior to every election and includes only those persons who are entitled to vote at that particular election. In the event that several elections are held simultaneously, the electoral roll is the same for each election. An electoral roll is drawn up for every electoral district and will be used at the polling stations.

Whether a person has the right to vote is determined by details in the population registration database of the Tax authorities on August 16 (30 days before Election Day). This implies that voters resident in Sweden are included in the electoral roll in the electoral district where they are registered 30 days before Election Day."

"Moderate" Republicans are actually the "Majority" of Republicans
I have difficulty believing this. Why do moderates have little to no senior representation in the Republican party if they are the majority?

first off, im very "liberal" on social issues and taxation, but not so much on international trade (kinda like clinton...i do enjoy a good blowjob). i would probably never vote for a republican. i think im gonna register republican when i turn 18. this means i get to vote in the republican primary for either a moderate guy or a guy whos gonna lose. not only that but i can write to my congressman and say dear mr. congressman, im a registred republican and i think blah dee blah dee blah. i think this has more of an effect on republican politicians. plus i get to piss off all my republican freinds.
like you, i am very liberal on social issues, rational on taxation (i think we should strive to pay our bills), and cautious on all things international. ive always been independant. i saw no reason to register for a political party at all.

this last presidential election i registered democrat so i could vote in the newmexico primary. (my guy lost).

i could never register republican because of their staunchly conservative stand on social issues. im sure i dont have to explain to you how upsetting they are to me.

it used to be that the republicans were attractive because of their rational conservative stand on the economy. that has gone by. they have become the "dont tax and still spend" party. i suppose i am too old to be disillusioned by things that politicians do but it is disheartening to see how quickly the republicans tossed out their tradtional beliefs once they had control of congress and the executive branch.

So, let's see if I've got this right:

1. Officials who you don't agree with (but apparently the majority of Americans do, or else they wouldn't have won) are elected into power.

2. You get pissed off because the rest of us are obviously so stupid since we can't see that your views are clearly superior to ours.

3. Instead of rallying more people to your cause, you decide to be a bitch and sabotage the right of those who disagree with you to elect whomever they want to represent them.

You are a coward and an impediment to the democratic process. Now that's "fucking Nazi Germany."
1. ok, your on the right track so far.
2. uhhhhhh, what?
3. who said i wont rally more people to my cause? whos bitching? how am i sabotaging, its my right to vote and register however i see fit. they can elect whoever they want, and ill elect whoever i want
4. how am i an impediment to the democratic process? you dont know much about the nazis do you?

Sounds like a good idea. I'll look into it.

But of course things are a bit simpler for an election in Sweden.

Sweden: 9,001,774 people; total area: 449,964 sq km

U.S.A: 295,734,134 people; total area: 9,631,418 sq km

Administration of national elections is a tad more complicated here.

Nonetheless, the voting card may be a superior method.

EDIT: Don't you still have an electoral register? That is what says who gets a voting card, right?
Just remember that not all of those 295 million are even eligible to vote under the law. Especially since that number includes all the immigrant noncitizens, both legal and illegal, and all the convicts.

Yes. Most communities require that a Republican register with the local police before they can move to their neighborhood. I think it's called "Reagan's Law."


whats sad is, some people actually believed you. and no its not like nazi germany, when you register to vote, you register under a political party so you can vote in primaries... if your a democrat, why would the republicans want you to vote for their primaries?.... it makes perfect sense. of course you can do what everyone else does... register as an independent... then you can vote for whoever the hell you want in any election. its the easiest way to get what you want without strings attached.

I take offense to people comparing the American electoral system to Nazi Germany.

Now I don't know how the Democratic Party operates, but as someone who has been in the Republican Party and participated in its committees, I'd like to throw in my two cents.

As TCT, stated earlier, the rules tend to depend on the state. There are no federal regulations regulating voter registration in the US, other than that you have to be at least 18 and a US citizen to vote in federal elections. All other rules and regs are made by the states and apply to those state's residents.
One given rule is that you have to a resident of the state you intend to vote in.
Most states have a residency requirement in which you have to live in the state a certain amount of time before you can register.

As for open primaries, some states have them. But niether the Republican nor the Democratic party like these laws. This is one of a few issues the two parties actually agree on and work together on. The reason for this stance is that we believe that such laws violate our right to freedom of association.
Further, though some of you were joking about it, some people actually do register with the opposing party to jinx it.
This is something that the vast majority of members of both parties agree on, which is that you should only be allowed to vote in the primary of the party you are registered with.

Now being registered doesn't mean you get a seat at the conventions or central committee meetings. A central committee is a group of party members that is charged with recruitement and fundraising efforts in a certain, defined geographical area. Both the parties have these. These are the people who tend to come to your door or call you asking for donations or volunteers. They are people who live in your neighborhood. It is very rare that you'll get a Republican or a Democrat from outside your community to do this kind of stuff, unless your local central committee is low on resources and or membership.

In California, the local committees of both parties are polarized to the point that they oppose stuff just because the other party supports it. But the County level central committee and the state central committee are dominated and pretty much under the control of Moderates. Well at least on the Republican side it is.

Having said that, not every Republican is a member of the local central committee. You have to be elected to the committee. What you do is, you run for some office, say school board. This gets the parties interest. Then if you are interested you can ask to run for a slot on the committee.
Another way to get on, this won't work for city councils or school boards because in California, those non partisan offices. But if you run for a state or federal office, you automatically become a member of your local central committee. It is at the committee level that you have the most say about the direction of the party.

The meetings are open to the public but only committee members can vote iteims of business. This is mostly budgetary stuff. The issues jockeying doesn't take place until elections start getting close.

whats sad is, some people actually believed you. and no its not like nazi germany, when you register to vote, you register under a political party so you can vote in primaries... if your a democrat, why would the republicans want you to vote for their primaries?.... it makes perfect sense. of course you can do what everyone else does... register as an independent... then you can vote for whoever the hell you want in any election. its the easiest way to get what you want without strings attached.
California passed an open primary law back in 1998. It was overturned by the US Supreme Court, however, on the grounds that it violated the Constitution.

California passed an open primary law back in 1998. It was overturned by the US Supreme Court, however, on the grounds that it violated the Constitution.

Did it allow voting in both primaries? Most places seem to allow you to vote in either primary, but only in one. Then, you can vote for whoever you want in the general election.

Did it allow voting in both primaries? Most places seem to allow you to vote in either primary, but only in one. Then, you can vote for whoever you want in the general election.
No. You were only allowed to vote in either one or the other.

No. You were only allowed to vote in either one or the other.

Are you under the impression that your budding political career requires you to be allergic to facts?

1. The open primary proposition was passed in 1996, not 1998.

2. It called for a blanket primary. All candidates listed on every ballot regardless of party. Voters could vote for whomever the chose for each elected position. The top vote getter for each party was that party's nominee.

3. So, no, you were allowed to vote for more than one party.

The California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party brought suit challenging the law. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with -- to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by -- those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary." California Democratic Party v. Jones (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/530/567.html ), 530 US 567 (2000).

Are you under the impression that your budding political career requires you to be allergic to facts?



In politics it is an absolute prerequisite.

Just to clarify for those reading who aren't American, this is the deal with registering to vote

In most (this excludes New Hampshire, and maybe some others) in order to vote in a primary election (the primaries are where you select who from a party will actually run in the "real" election), you must be registered for that party. In other words, lets say there are five republicans who want to be president. These people will debate and campaign against each other. The primaries will begin, and ONLY registered republicans will be allowed to vote for one of these five. The democrats do the same. People registered indepenent or unaffiliated will not be permitted to vote in these primaries, but can vote in the actual election for president.

In New Hampshire, the major difference (and the reason why the New Hampshire primary is considered so important) is that independents may vote for a person in both primaries (in other words, they can select the democrat and republican of their choice). New Hampshire is heavily independent, and so is thought to be a good representation of the population

Note: I am not positive on how exactly New Hampshire runs and wether people can vote for people in both primaries, or only one...I'm pretty sure they can, but not positive.

I believe the part that is "freaky" is that you register what party you are "going" to vote for.

You don't have to vote for the party you register for, I voted Libertarian even though I'm a registered Republican. However, because each party has their own primary you have to register with one of the parties to vote in their primary. On the real election night, though, if you want to vote for the other party all together you are completely free to do so. We like to complicate things, this way we weed out all those people that don’t really care that much from voting in the primaries.

P.S. – If you ever wish to run for office and make a real change I suggest you don’t register for the opposite party just to sabotage them, years later it may come back to bite you in the ass. Just a thought, do what you like though.

I have difficulty believing this. Why do moderates have little to no senior representation in the Republican party if they are the majority?
For the same reason you have far left people like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi running the Democrat party -- the people put them there.

There's a name for people with your beliefs, it's John McCain.
Actually, not true.

John McCain is very conservative socially; he's just willing to compromise. Thus the moderate label.

i think im gonna register republican when i turn 18. this means i get to vote in the republican primary for either a moderate guy or a guy whos gonna lose.

Have you thought that it could be a better idea for the party you really want in office if you voted in the Dem. primaries and nominated a person that had a snowballs chance in hell at actually winning the election? I will give you that Kerry came closer than most Republicans are comfortable saying, but he did still lose the popular vote (even Gore won that). As I keep telling all my liberal friends, you need to nominate someone the country can rally behind... a.k.a. a moderate, meaning not some crazy left-wing nut job that is just as bad as all the insane religious, right-wing nut jobs.

not only that but i can write to my congressman and say dear mr. congressman, im a registred republican and i think blah dee blah dee blah. i think this has more of an effect on republican politicians. plus i get to piss off all my republican freinds.

As for the idea of sounding better when writing the Republican politicians, first they don't care what you have to say they are politicians, second any Republican would just pin it down to you not really being in line with the true Republican values and throw your letter in the trash. If your Congressman actually takes the time out of his day to read your letter (which he/she will not do anyway) or one of their assistants read it, they will not care what you have to say unless you tack a large donation to their campaign to the bottom of said letter.

Are you under the impression that your budding political career requires you to be allergic to facts?

1. The open primary proposition was passed in 1996, not 1998.

2. It called for a blanket primary. All candidates listed on every ballot regardless of party. Voters could vote for whomever the chose for each elected position. The top vote getter for each party was that party's nominee.

3. So, no, you were allowed to vote for more than one party.

The California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party brought suit challenging the law. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment right of association. "Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with -- to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by -- those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party." Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party's "basic function" to choose its own leaders and is functionally "both severe and unnecessary." California Democratic Party v. Jones (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/530/567.html ), 530 US 567 (2000).


1. I stand corrected. California was the first open primary in state history. The second and final open primary (2000) was the first and only time Californians would choose a president using the open primary system.

2. You are not really disagreeing with me here. That fact is that voters could only make one choice. Vote for only one person. The other guy was asking if they could vote someone in one party then go and vote for another guy in another party. My response was that which ever party they voted in, that was the only party they could vote in. Even then, you were not allowed to go back and change your vote.

3. No you could not vote for more than one party. You had to choose which party you wanted to vote for. Well, if you were voting on more than one office you could. But if say, you were only voting for governor, then you could only vote in one. Only one person (of whatever party you choose) per office.

Apparently they tried to do it again in 2004:
http://reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/article/files/269.shtml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/209071_gcenter24.html

Even while the law was in effect, neither party was obligated to accept the delegates chosen by the voters:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/07/14/california.primary/

Basically in just about every court case, the courts have decided for the political parties, even when they contradicted laws passed by the states.
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/ElectionLaws/PBDerhamAftertheBlanketPrimary2003.html





Unfortunately the advocates of open primaries are at it again:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/03/29/california_voters_to_consider_open_primary.html

Just to clarify for those reading who aren't American, this is the deal with registering to vote

In most (this excludes New Hampshire, and maybe some others) in order to vote in a primary election (the primaries are where you select who from a party will actually run in the "real" election), you must be registered for that party. In other words, lets say there are five republicans who want to be president. These people will debate and campaign against each other. The primaries will begin, and ONLY registered republicans will be allowed to vote for one of these five. The democrats do the same. People registered indepenent or unaffiliated will not be permitted to vote in these primaries, but can vote in the actual election for president.

In New Hampshire, the major difference (and the reason why the New Hampshire primary is considered so important) is that independents may vote for a person in both primaries (in other words, they can select the democrat and republican of their choice). New Hampshire is heavily independent, and so is thought to be a good representation of the population

Note: I am not positive on how exactly New Hampshire runs and wether people can vote for people in both primaries, or only one...I'm pretty sure they can, but not positive.

In the US, it is the parties who choose who get to run for President. And the voters pick from among the choices made by the various parties to represent them. The point of the Primary is for each party to choose the person they think best represents them and their platform, and they think is most likely to beat the other party's guy.

For the same reason you have far left people like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi running the Democrat party -- the people put them there.
Well said, in the ten years I was involved in California politics, I got to know Democrats as well as Republicans. Finding a moderate in either party was extremely rare. Though I found that the Dems were the more extremist of the two. Hence, my dislike for them.

Have you thought that it could be a better idea for the party you really want in office if you voted in the Dem. primaries and nominated a person that had a snowballs chance in hell at actually winning the election? I will give you that Kerry came closer than most Republicans are comfortable saying, but he did still lose the popular vote (even Gore won that). As I keep telling all my liberal friends, you need to nominate someone the country can rally behind... a.k.a. a moderate, meaning not some crazy left-wing nut job that is just as bad as all the insane religious, right-wing nut jobs.



As for the idea of sounding better when writing the Republican politicians, first they don't care what you have to say they are politicians, second any Republican would just pin it down to you not really being in line with the true Republican values and throw your letter in the trash. If your Congressman actually takes the time out of his day to read your letter (which he/she will not do anyway) or one of their assistants read it, they will not care what you have to say unless you tack a large donation to their campaign to the bottom of said letter.

Wait a minute there.
All people in political office (regardless of their party) do care what you have to say. And in many cases, they send a response.
A republican office holder, particularly a congressman, would not do that. The fact is that most candidates for Congress are extremist in their campaigns, but then once in office, they become moderate. The ones that don't tend to end up like B1 Bob.
If the Congressman doesn't read it, one of his assistants will. They have people on their staffs just for that purpose. If its something they think they can do something bout, they bring it to his attention. Don't be upset if you don't get an immediate response though, members of Congress get millions of letters every day asking for this and that. And even if its just an acknowledgment, you will definately get a response. Just remember to be courteous when you are writing. You are more likely to get a response that way. If you write something like "I think your parties positions are f'd up. I think you gay. etc etc." Don't be surprised if you don't get a response. Those are usually the ones that end up in the trash bend. Along with ones that say this party is evil or that party is evil.
And no, you don't have to make a contribution.

I understand the electoral collage, but this just baffles my mind.

This is fucking Nazi Germany.


I just love how everyone compares America to Nazi Germany. It just shows how much everyone so wholly comprehends the horrors of the Nazi regime. Talk to me when a third of an entire race is exterminated, then maybe ill take you and anything you say seriously; until then, you have no crediblity.

You don't have to vote for the party you register for, I voted Libertarian even though I'm a registered Republican. However, because each party has their own primary you have to register with one of the parties to vote in their primary. On the real election night, though, if you want to vote for the other party all together you are completely free to do so. We like to complicate things, this way we weed out all those people that don’t really care that much from voting in the primaries.

P.S. – If you ever wish to run for office and make a real change I suggest you don’t register for the opposite party just to sabotage them, years later it may come back to bite you in the ass. Just a thought, do what you like though.
didn't anyone read my "how kerry could've won" thread. this is exactly what im talking about!!!

Have you thought that it could be a better idea for the party you really want in office if you voted in the Dem. primaries.
did it work the last 2 times for you?

I just love how everyone compares America to Nazi Germany. It just shows how much everyone so wholly comprehends the horrors of the Nazi regime. Talk to me when a third of an entire race is exterminated, then maybe ill take you and anything you say seriously; until then, you have no crediblity.

Um. I totally hate that comparison as well and have objected to it.

But, there are some Native Americans that would like a word with you ....

But, there are some Native Americans that would like a word with you ....
pwned

2. You are not really disagreeing with me here. That fact is that voters could only make one choice. Vote for only one person. The other guy was asking if they could vote someone in one party then go and vote for another guy in another party. My response was that which ever party they voted in, that was the only party they could vote in. Even then, you were not allowed to go back and change your vote.

Incorrect. I asked if they could vote in both primaries. Obviously, they could. It was a different system than any I have seen before, but they were allowed to vote, at least partially, in both.

In GA, you do not have to register a party (thank God, because I think registering for either is idiotic). However, you can choose one primary to vote in. As an independent voter, I vote in the primary that I see as being most important. This past election, there were some Republicans running that I definitely, under no circumstances, wanted as my representatives. There were no close races on the Democrat side. Thus, I voted in the Republican primary. Next time, I might find the Democrat primary to be more important. of course, I've moved to white, suburban Republicanville (and I'm so glad my neighboorhood doesn't really fit in with the surrounding areas), so I doubt it.

But, there are some Native Americans that would like a word with you ....

The issue at hand is the current administration and state of the nation and the ridiculous comparison, I was not speaking for things that happened under the watch of an administration in the mid 1800's. Even still, there is NO comparison between that time and Hitler's germany. The numbers are just staggering.

You have to register as a republican?

Heh, and here I was, all this time, under the impression that all there was to being a Republican was a closet full of Klan gear, a chip on one's shoulder, and a cousin/wife. Poor Republican hopefuls, having to register and all, now they'll have to spend all day learning to write their names ><

:D

The issue at hand is the current administration and state of the nation and the ridiculous comparison, I was not speaking for things that happened under the watch of an administration in the mid 1800's. Even still, there is NO comparison between that time and Hitler's germany. The numbers are just staggering.

<sigh>

I thought I was rather clear that the comparison was ridiculous.

It also had nothing to do with "the current administration," but rather with our election laws.

If you think oppression of the Native Americans either began or ended in the 1800s, you are sadly mistaken. Over 500 years of genocide. 1492 to the present.

And, while I firmly believe the Holocaust is a uniquely evil crime against humanity and would not diminish its horror one bit, YES: there is a comparison. The numbers of the Native American genocide are just staggering.

(And, it is rather well documented that Hitler greatly admired and claimed to have taken some inspiration from the American treatment of Indians -- particularly the herding by force of people into "reservations," where many starved or were killed.)

Again, the Holocaust is a among, if not the, greatest crime committed by mankind. But the Native American genocide is up there.

*** the MORE you KNOW ****

I have difficulty believing this. Why do moderates have little to no senior representation in the Republican party if they are the majority?

Who has time to volunteer for campaigns, when they're working? Who has the energy to make Politics more important than family time, or going to the jobsite?

Generally, the less real-world contact you have, the fruitier your views are going to be, and the more time you have to devote to political obsessions.

Hence, only people who can afford to centre their lives around political activity become "Senior Leadership" in political parties. Voter Apathy comes from having more important (in the immediate) things to do than spending hours upon hours and thousands of dollars on the power-positions in politics.

Most genuine moderates are too damned busy to spend their lives on political campaigns. It takes something drastic to get them to turn out at all, much less often enough to attain serious leadership positions.

Only the Super-rich, the Crazy, and the Unemployed have that kind of time.

BTW: this applies to both sides of the Aisle, which is why you get people like Pelosi and Boxer on the left, and Ellen Craswell (The "Anti Witchcraft" candidate for Washington state governor in 1996) in senior leadership or prominent positions.

Most Republican Voters are just that-voters. Like Democrats, they don't have the time or energy to spend researching the background, attitudes, and beliefs of the candidates put before them in any detail.
Unless there's an obvious crisis. The last two Presidential elections had the largest turnout in recent memory because there was an obvious crisis involved.
Neither party's leadership really wants a motivated and informed rank-in-file, because if they had one, it would spell the end of said leadership's powerbase.