View Full Version : Forced To Be A Republican ....
Changing residence from MA to FL, I registered to vote. I was told I could check off. Dem, GOP, or Unaffiliated. I said "Unaffiliated." Clerk said, "you can do that, but you can't vote in the primary elections if Unaffiliated"
WTF? I told her I was always registered as an Independent, and she said if I planned to vote in the primaries, I had to be one or the other. I chose GOP. How's that for putting the fix in for the two party system? How many other states in the US do that? Is it like that in your state?
Now, I can vote for whom ever I want come the primaries, so no, it does force one to vote for the party they are a member of, but I'm astounded no one has challenged that rule in FL in court, or other states that do it too. I have no doubt that being forced to choose one of two parties influences people's choices when they go to vote. I don't want to be listed as a GOP voter, take pride in being an Independent voter who focuses on issues vs parties, and will vote any party or candidate I feel has the county's best interests at hand (which means following the damn Const. as closely as possible...) and do not appreciate being strong armed into choosing between what are two utterly corrupt parties I don't want to be affiliated with.
How has that not been challenged in the states that do that?
Eurodriver
06-27-16, 16:40
Oh look, a New Englander coming to FL and wanting to make it like where he came from.
Color me shocked. :-|
Oh look, a New Englander coming to FL and wanting to make it like where he came from.
Color me shocked. :-|
You consider that Constitutional? I sure as hell don't. That's not Liberty any way one shapes it. It's two party power sharing. I moved to FL in large part for the improvements in various laws and such, not to be told what party I must be affiliated with. There's nothing about that which is reflective of NE views nor values
KalashniKEV
06-27-16, 16:48
It's Florida... just be glad you don't get your face bitten off by a radical Islamist flakka-zombie as retaliation for walking through a neighborhood where he-don't-know-you...
Register Dem and help take them down from the inside
It's the same way here in New Mexico; you're either democrat or Republican, or you can't vote in the primaries.
There are a lot of states with "closed primaries". Never mind that in many local races, that means you aren't allowed to vote at all. :(
Averageman
06-27-16, 16:54
Here's your Scarlet letter R
I think I have a Romney lapel pin here somewhere for you, wear them both proudly!
MountainRaven
06-27-16, 16:57
You consider that Constitutional? I sure as hell don't. That's not Liberty any way one shapes it. It's two party power sharing. I moved to FL in large part for the improvements in various laws and such, not to be told what party I must be affiliated with. There's nothing about that which is reflective of NE views nor values
I think he was joking.
In any case it could be worse - they could let you vote in whichever primary you wanted to and then throw your ballot out, anyway.
Outlander Systems
06-27-16, 17:04
And shot by a Transracial Latino on Neighborhood Watch, and thenceforth sold to recovering Amish.
It's Florida... just be glad you don't get your face bitten off by a radical Islamist flakka-zombie as retaliation for walking through a neighborhood where he-don't-know-you...
Ours are open, but they tried not long ago to change them to closed...
I may be off, but I think it was like a dozen states have closed primaries.
I haven't been able to vote in a primary since I switched to Independent 25 years ago after it was apparent that the GOP had deserted me. It does limit the incessant donation solicitation calls every 4 years. One less phone spam list.
I guess I never thought that I should be able to participate in the selection process of a party to which I'm not a member.
It's Florida... just be glad you don't get your face bitten off by a radical Islamist flakka-zombie as retaliation for walking through a neighborhood where he-don't-know-you...
No place nor state is perfect. I will say, I was very surprised FL would pull such a blatant thing.
PatrioticDisorder
06-27-16, 17:30
No place nor state is perfect. I will say, I was very surprised FL would pull such a blatant thing.
Plenty of other states like this (closed primary vs. open) and I distinctly remember the anti-Trumpers whining about open primaries yet Trump destroyed the field in the closed primary of Florida.
Doc Safari
06-27-16, 17:32
Oh look, a New Englander coming to FL and wanting to make it like where he came from.
Color me shocked. :-|
Trade you. We get Californians doing the same thing.
No place nor state is perfect. I will say, I was very surprised FL would pull such a blatant thing.
It's pretty common, and look at it from their perspective. They are the Republican Party. They want people to join the party. If you want to decide the republican nominee, you should be a member of the party.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's pretty common, and look at it from their perspective. They are the Republican Party. They want people to join the party. If you want to decide the republican nominee, you should be a member of the party.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do the parties foot the bill for the primary elections?
Do the parties foot the bill for the primary elections?
You know, I'm not sure. I'd think they do. At least to some extent.
Now, I can vote for whom ever I want come the primaries, so no, it does force one to vote for the party they are a member of,
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....
Newp, you can't vote for whomever you want in the primaries. You can vote for whichever Republican you want in the primary but there will be no Dem names on your primary ballot. Independent candidates will be, but no Dems.
The idea is to keep people from the other party voting for someone to sabotage the other party's popular nominee
And according to the Google:
Eleven states — Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming — have closed primaries. Semi-closed. As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary.
It's Florida... just be glad you don't get your face bitten off by a radical Islamist flakka-zombie as retaliation for walking through a neighborhood where he-don't-know-you...
Anything can happen in FL, which is part of what I like about it. If said Islamist flakka-zombie attacks, at least there's no duty to retreat.
Register Dem and help take them down from the inside
You're a wizard!
It's the same way here in New Mexico; you're either democrat or Republican, or you can't vote in the primaries.
How that would hold up to Const scrutiny I have no idea.
There are a lot of states with "closed primaries". Never mind that in many local races, that means you aren't allowed to vote at all. :(
Per comments above. That's fu$%ed.
Here's your Scarlet letter R
I think I have a Romney lapel pin here somewhere for you, wear them both proudly!
I'm offended and contacting the same attorneys BLM use as we speak.
I think he was joking.
In any case it could be worse - they could let you vote in whichever primary you wanted to and then throw your ballot out, anyway.
Damn hanging chads!
Big A is right in above comments. Cali used to be closed primary as Dems would often cross lines to vote in the primary for the candidate they would rather face. Understand that many Dem primaries are run unopposed so there is no danger of not getting their candidate of choice. Once Dems owned the state, they made it open primary and they even openly tell other Dems to vote across lines to sabotage the Repubs. There is no outcry about it at all now.
The_War_Wagon
06-27-16, 18:49
PA's the same way.
KalashniKEV
06-27-16, 18:56
And shot by a Transracial Latino on Neighborhood Watch, and thenceforth sold to recovering Amish.
The Amish thing was in PA and I already addressed Zimmerman.
How about- get carjacked by a public masturbating stripper with homemade tattoos who killed her kid in a meth lab, and blamed it on a suspicious brown alligator who no one has ever seen or heard of before, named Slater the Gator?
There's a sort of logic to it.
The primaries are internal party methods of selecting the candidates. If you're not a member of the party, why should you be able to tell them who to send forward?
It's why I changed from Independent to Republican, wanted to be able to vote in the primaries. Neither party seems to want "independents" contributing at all.
In Kansas if you are not affiliated with a party 21 days before the election you can declare a party at the poll - for primaries. You get that parties ballot.
In Kansas, because of our elected assclowns, we have had a run of Democrats going in to register as Republicans, or Independents, for this year's primary. IDK if they can change affiliations for the General, but it really doesn't matter because many of the local races are non-partizan, and you can vote for any party's candidate in the General.
At it's base it makes sense to me, why would either party want to let members of the other party determine who they put up in the general?
KalashniKEV
06-27-16, 21:30
...we have had a run of Democrats going in to register as Republicans, or Independents, for this year's primary.
Because they supposedly wanted to block Trump... but then after Trump got it they claimed they did vote for Trump because he's the most beatable.
LOL... suuuuure...
Changing residence from MA to FL, I registered to vote. I was told I could check off. Dem, GOP, or Unaffiliated. I said "Unaffiliated." Clerk said, "you can do that, but you can't vote in the primary elections if Unaffiliated"
WTF? I told her I was always registered as an Independent, and she said if I planned to vote in the primaries, I had to be one or the other. I chose GOP. How's that for putting the fix in for the two party system? How many other states in the US do that? Is it like that in your state?
Now, I can vote for whom ever I want come the primaries, so no, it does force one to vote for the party they are a member of, but I'm astounded no one has challenged that rule in FL in court, or other states that do it too. I have no doubt that being forced to choose one of two parties influences people's choices when they go to vote. I don't want to be listed as a GOP voter, take pride in being an Independent voter who focuses on issues vs parties, and will vote any party or candidate I feel has the county's best interests at hand (which means following the damn Const. as closely as possible...) and do not appreciate being strong armed into choosing between what are two utterly corrupt parties I don't want to be affiliated with.
How has that not been challenged in the states that do that?
Same thing happened when I registered after moving to New Mexico. It is what it is...IDK about changing the way it is in Florida, but the general vibe I get here is change happens slowly, if at all. I chose not to register at all, since I did not want to be on any one's political friend/foe list.
Oh look, a New Englander coming to FL and wanting to make it like where he came from.
Color me shocked. :-|
I couldn't say better myself. You flee the cesspool you created and than destroy your haven with the convoluted practices that caused you to flee in the first place.
BuzzinSATX
06-28-16, 05:57
It's why I changed from Independent to Republican, wanted to be able to vote in the primaries. Neither party seems to want "independents" contributing at all.
They don't want Independents to contribute, they want us to conform...
MichaelVain
06-28-16, 06:36
I don't see a problem with having closed primaries.
Which amendment protects a person's right to vote in a political party's primary?
Same in NY, hav to be registered member of dem or rep party to vote in primary.
Weird side note. When we went to vote in primary this year, 8 like in my relatively small circle all of a sudden were listed as "no party" even though we'd all been republicans since. I don't know, birth? I've gone online three times to change back to the correct party and thus far I received back three notices advising me that the change has been done and the box is checked under "name changeand" still listing me as "no party." Nothing to see here, perfectly normal I assume.
I don't get why people would think they should be able to vote to choose the candidate of a party in which they aren't a member. If a person wants to have that input, why not just register as a member of that party? It doesn't cost anything and imposes no obligations. What's the big deal?
I don't get why people would think they should be able to vote to choose the candidate of a party in which they aren't a member. If a person wants to have that input, why not just register as a member of that party? It doesn't cost anything and imposes no obligations. What's the big deal?
Exactly.
The ability to vote in a party's primary when you're not a member isn't much logically different than being able to vote in every primary.
I don't get why people would think they should be able to vote to choose the candidate of a party in which they aren't a member. If a person wants to have that input, why not just register as a member of that party? It doesn't cost anything and imposes no obligations. What's the big deal?
If the party pays for it's primary election process, I don't have a problem with that. If ALL taxpayers foot the bill but they aren't allowed to vote? That's taxation without representation, and I have a BIG problem with that.
If the party pays for it's primary election process, I don't have a problem with that. If ALL taxpayers foot the bill but they aren't allowed to vote? That's taxation without representation, and I have a BIG problem with that.Typically, the taxpayers pay for a primary election, so yeah...you're footing the bill. Those that feel that they're being taxed without being represented should just register with a party of their choice that holds a primary in their state. Problem solved.
Typically, the taxpayers pay for a primary election, so yeah...you're footing the bill. Those that feel that they're being taxed without being represented should just register with a party of their choice that holds a primary in their state. Problem solved.
And that is why we will always be stuck with the Two Party System.
Having to register for one party or the other isn't that big of a deal. Some people, even on this forum, believe that you should have to contribute to a campaign to be a part of the nomination process. Just ask our resident faux-conservative.
Exactly.
The ability to vote in a party's primary when you're not a member isn't much logically different than being able to vote in every primary.
The Coke and Pepsi parties making it harder for other parties to get on the ballot is a lot more of an issue than them closing their primaries. I've always thought of a primary election as a party matter moreso than a public one (outside the jungle primary states that is).
Changing residence from MA to FL, I registered to vote. I was told I could check off. Dem, GOP, or Unaffiliated. I said "Unaffiliated." Clerk said, "you can do that, but you can't vote in the primary elections if Unaffiliated"
WTF? I told her I was always registered as an Independent, and she said if I planned to vote in the primaries, I had to be one or the other. I chose GOP. How's that for putting the fix in for the two party system? How many other states in the US do that? Is it like that in your state?
Now, I can vote for whom ever I want come the primaries, so no, it does force one to vote for the party they are a member of, but I'm astounded no one has challenged that rule in FL in court, or other states that do it too. I have no doubt that being forced to choose one of two parties influences people's choices when they go to vote. I don't want to be listed as a GOP voter, take pride in being an Independent voter who focuses on issues vs parties, and will vote any party or candidate I feel has the county's best interests at hand (which means following the damn Const. as closely as possible...) and do not appreciate being strong armed into choosing between what are two utterly corrupt parties I don't want to be affiliated with.
How has that not been challenged in the states that do that?
On the other hand it doesn't allow one party to sabotage vote the other without being registered as that party.
The Coke and Pepsi parties making it harder for other parties to get on the ballot is a lot more of an issue than them closing their primaries. I've always thought of a primary election as a party matter moreso than a public one (outside the jungle primary states that is).
Yep.
Parties don't even need to have a vote, they can just choose someone to represent the party.
Don Robison
06-28-16, 17:57
They don't want Independents to contribute, they want us to conform...
Parties are picking their candidate to represent their party and if you aren't a member of the party you shouldn't have a say in who represents that party. No one is forcing anyone to join a party.
I wouldn't expect to be able to vote in share holder elections if I weren't a share holder either.
Averageman
06-28-16, 18:50
I do believe in some states and Florida may be one, if you are a registered Republican, you're limited by Law to the missionary position only.
Sorry Bud, that's the Scarlet R for you.
threeheadeddog
06-28-16, 19:17
I don't understand some peoples lack of understanding of primary voting. Allowing people to vote in the other parties primary is akin to saying that the neighbor should be allowed to vote on what my family has for dinner on Friday night even though he doesn't live here, wont be eating with us, and is actively trying to put a laxative in my food every chance he gets.
The primary process is for a PARTY to decide who THEY will back. The truth is they are not in any way constitutionally or morally required to ask our opinions who they support anyway. They have primary voting to see who the public will support the most so they can best decide how to use there money.
Because they supposedly wanted to block Trump... but then after Trump got it they claimed they did vote for Trump because he's the most beatable.
LOL... suuuuure...
No actually because our weasel fvcking Governor, who has never had a job outside politics in his life, has completely screwed our state economy for the foreseeable future and any person with one iots of intellect wants to get rid of him and his lackeys.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42817/kansas-judge-impeachment/
Parties are picking their candidate to represent their party and if you aren't a member of the party you shouldn't have a say in who represents that party. No one is forcing anyone to join a party.
I know it's probably not what you intended, but it's a sad thought that "the people" must conform to the representation of "the parties" rather than the "parties" conform to the "representative views of the people."
We've fallen a long, long way.
For most Americans, there is no longer true representation. Most of us want social freedom and fiscal responsibility. Our choices are some of our freedoms and a healthy dose of government control or some of our other freedoms and a healthy dose of government control.
Don Robison
07-02-16, 09:44
I know it's probably not what you intended, but it's a sad thought that "the people" must conform to the representation of "the parties" rather than the "parties" conform to the "representative views of the people."
We've fallen a long, long way.
For most Americans, there is no longer true representation. Most of us want social freedom and fiscal responsibility. Our choices are some of our freedoms and a healthy dose of government control or some of our other freedoms and a healthy dose of government control.
No one said anyone must conform. Nothing is stopping every other party plus independents from having a primary election and convention except a lack of more than one person wanting the nomination for those parties/independents and a lack or organization. For example if someone were opposing Johnson for the Libertarian spot they would need a process aka primary to decide or the party heads could just save the money and say Johnson is our guy and if you don't like it find another candidate.
What's sad is that we as a nation think it's ever been a different way. The only thing that has changed in 240 years is the party names.
Sent from my Energy X 2 using Tapatalk
We've fallen a long, long way.
For most Americans, there is no longer true representation. . Our choices are some of our freedoms and a healthy dose of government control or some of our other freedoms and a healthy dose of government control.
I don't see it that way. The two-party sytem in the US has been around for over two hundred years, with an equally long history of non-viability of third-party candidates. Additionally, I think your sentiment that "most of us want social freedom and fiscal responsibility" is overly optimistic and actually applies to, at most, half the country.
I don't see it that way. The two-party sytem in the US has been around for over two hundred years, with an equally long history of non-viability of third-party candidates. Additionally, I think your sentiment that "most of us want social freedom and fiscal responsibility" is overly optimistic and actually applies to, at most, half the country.
I agree with you on what most want or don't want. Historically, a highly motivated minority will dictate what a complacent majority will be required to accept. So I think its time we become the most motivated of the minorities and start doing some dictating of our own. :mad:
MountainRaven
07-02-16, 12:15
Someday, I hope someone will actually watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
I agree with you on what most want or don't want. Historically, a highly motivated minority will dictate what a complacent majority will be required to accept. So I think its time we become the most motivated of the minorities and start doing some dictating of our own. :mad:
Yeah, but I'm not convinced that those that want want "social freedom and fiscal responsibility" represent the silent majority, or for that matter, any kind of majority at all.
Yeah, but I'm not convinced that those that want want "social freedom and fiscal responsibility" represent the silent majority, or for that matter, any kind of majority at all.
You didn't understand what I posted apparently. I specifically said MOTIVATED MINORITY. :)
You didn't understand what I posted apparently. I specifically said MOTIVATED MINORITY. :)
Yeah right. I'm not so sure that they are actually the minority. I think that what you are calling the MOTIVATED MINORITY may very well be the actual MAJORITY.
At this point, I don't even know what you're talking about. :confused:
brushy bill
07-02-16, 22:04
Texas does not require you to register for either party. You just can't vote in both party primaries. You have to decide which to vote in.
Texas does not require you to register for either party. You just can't vote in both party primaries. You have to decide which to vote in.
I don't think the system makes much sense:
Voters in the state of Texas do not have to publicly identify themselves as a member of a political party when they register to vote. When they go to the polls they can freely choose either the Republican ticket or the Democratic ticket. However, voters cannot vote across party lines. Once a person chooses the ticket they will vote on they can only decide between candidates of that party. Voters in Texas receive a new voter registration card every year so they don’t have to vote on the same ticket each primary election.
However, the system in place doesn’t favor the independent voter. It still requires voters to pick a side rather than vote their conscience. Many independent voters believe that one side doesn’t necessarily have all the answers. There might be one candidate that speaks to them who is a member of one party, but in another race their favored candidate might be running on the other party’s ticket.
The current primary system in Texas gives independent voters two options. They can either pick a party and hope for candidates that align closely with their political philosophy. Or, they can hold out, not vote in either party’s primary, and hope a third party candidate they can get behind declares their intentions to run in the general election in accordance with state law.
Many voters in Texas vote on strategy rather than on the person they really want.
Sometimes, Democrats will vote in a Republican primary in an effort to put through a more moderate candidate when they know they will probably lose a race, and vice versa.
Party leaders could encourage like-minded voters to vote in the opposing party’s primary to prevent one candidate from being elected or try to get a candidate elected that would be easier to beat. It is the voter’s decision. If a person votes the way they truly want then they haven’t wasted their vote, but if someone votes on strategy and not for the candidate they actually want to see elected, are they truly voting the way they want?
I don't think the Founding Fathers were thinking of gaming the system by voting for the other side. JMO
At this point, I don't even know what you're talking about. :confused:
Yes. I see that.
I just saw a petition going around my area to get a third party into the primaries. Looks like people are not happy with the choices for D or R and want to see some variety in the future.
I just saw a petition going around my area to get a third party into the primaries. Looks like people are not happy with the choices for D or R and want to see some variety in the future.
Meaning that they think Hillary Clinton would make an acceptable president.
Meaning that they think Hillary Clinton would make an acceptable president.
Actually these were Bernie's guys. The person passing the petition told me they were Democrats who don't want Hillary any where near the White House. The brief conversation was something like this- we don't support Trump or the racist Republicans, we don't like Hillary's establishment ties, and we want a third party on the primaries so that we can put a better person in offie.
MountainRaven
07-03-16, 13:49
I don't think the Founding Fathers were thinking of gaming the system by voting for the other side. JMO
Our present system DGAF.
John Adams didn't become the first VP by running on a George Washington/John Adams '89 ticket. When George Washington was elected, there were no parties. There were no parties when he was re-elected, either.
Thomas Jefferson didn't become John Adams's VP by running on an Adams/Jefferson '96 ticket - and now there were two parties, Adams coming from one and Jefferson from the other.
From 1804 until 1836, parties ran separate national campaigns for president and VP - by which point in time the majority of the Founding Fathers were dead - and that meant that someone from party A could win the presidential election and someone from party B could win the vice presidential election.
In any event, the system was radically different from the one we use today.
brushy bill
07-20-16, 22:20
I don't think the system makes much sense:
Voters in the state of Texas do not have to publicly identify themselves as a member of a political party when they register to vote. When they go to the polls they can freely choose either the Republican ticket or the Democratic ticket. However, voters cannot vote across party lines. Once a person chooses the ticket they will vote on they can only decide between candidates of that party. Voters in Texas receive a new voter registration card every year so they don’t have to vote on the same ticket each primary election.
However, the system in place doesn’t favor the independent voter. It still requires voters to pick a side rather than vote their conscience. Many independent voters believe that one side doesn’t necessarily have all the answers. There might be one candidate that speaks to them who is a member of one party, but in another race their favored candidate might be running on the other party’s ticket.
The current primary system in Texas gives independent voters two options. They can either pick a party and hope for candidates that align closely with their political philosophy. Or, they can hold out, not vote in either party’s primary, and hope a third party candidate they can get behind declares their intentions to run in the general election in accordance with state law.
Many voters in Texas vote on strategy rather than on the person they really want.
Sometimes, Democrats will vote in a Republican primary in an effort to put through a more moderate candidate when they know they will probably lose a race, and vice versa.
Party leaders could encourage like-minded voters to vote in the opposing party’s primary to prevent one candidate from being elected or try to get a candidate elected that would be easier to beat. It is the voter’s decision. If a person votes the way they truly want then they haven’t wasted their vote, but if someone votes on strategy and not for the candidate they actually want to see elected, are they truly voting the way they want?
I don't think the Founding Fathers were thinking of gaming the system by voting for the other side. JMO
If I recall correctly, I've always seen independent and libertarian candidates as options once I declared my party, just not the opposing party. Seemed very fair to me. Hope this makes sense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.