- Joined
- May 22, 2020
- Messages
- 3,161
- Reaction score
- 2,397
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I voted for a Republican in 2024's primary because I preferred that candidate over Trump or Biden/Harris.
I voted for a Republican in 2024's primary because I preferred that candidate over Trump or Biden/Harris.Except that it is not. It is not a required process at all. It is something that was developed by the individual parties (the first one being the Anti-Mason party IIRC) for the selection of their candidate to the general election.
Remember that this is a vote for the candidate for the general election, not for the office itself. However, it is very possible, that while they may prefer the other party candidate over the first's, they would want to vote for who they think is the best person in all parties.
A hell of a lot better than his wife ever would have been.
I also live in Colorado. I am listed as non-affiliated and when I get the ballots, I throw them both in the trash.An interesting stance. I personally prefer how Colorado handles it. I receive ballots from both parties and choose which i want to vote for. I'm only allowed to turn in one of the two.
That would defeat the purpose of being Independent in my view, but to each their own.I also live in Colorado. I am listed as non-affiliated and when I get the ballots, I throw them both in the trash.
Since I'm not a member of any political party, I don't think I have the right to vote in any party's primary. Choosing a party's candidate should be done by party members, and not by anybody else.
As an independent voter, I am free to vote for whomever I choose in the presidential election...Dem, Rep or other...without betraying an association with a party. I see that as being moral and ethical. I also see it as moral and ethical to NOT vote in any party's primary election.That would defeat the purpose of being Independent in my view, but to each their own.
In Georgia, an open primary state, we just register to vote, no party registration. Which means one can vote in whichever primary one wants to vote in. Independents are allowed to vote in either one, the republican or the democratic primary. But in the primaries, only the hard core, politically active party members tend to vote in their primaries. Most independents, swing voters don’t vote in either major party’s primary. Even with independents, swing voters being able to vote in either primary, only 550,000 voted in the 2024 GOP primary, 290,000 in the democratic primary. A total of 840,000. Compare that to the 5.4 million Georgians who voted in the 2024 presidential election.So lately, I have been seeing ads for a group (or maybe groups? Didn't really pay attention to names) pushing for laws to allow people who are not registered with a political party to vote in that party's primary election. So I wanted to see what opinions were on the issue.
I find myself of two minds here. On the one hand I would love the ability to vote in any and all primaries to help pick the best candidates for each. As a party independent libertarian, I have liked or prefered candidates from all the parties. On the other hand, I fully recognize that the political parties are not part of the government system and as such are subject to the same freedoms and limits as other private organizations. In reality, neither the Republican nor the Democrat parties are required to have primary elections. Most of the third parties don't. While it is right and proper that a person not be prevented from voting in a primary due to race, age (save age of majority), sex, etc, I find that there is no compelling argument as to why someone who is not registered to the party should be allowed to participate in what is essentially a private affair. In fact, I would be willing to bet that if it became mandatory for primaries to allow all voters, not just party registered ones, to vote in the primaries, the GOP would simply not hold them. I hold the position that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to force them to use a primary for their candidate selection. Democrats would probably continue to hold them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too just got rid of them.
So, let's hear what you all have to say. Should we allow anyone (assume properly registered to vote regardless of party affiliation) to vote in primaries? Why or why not? Should we mandate that the parties have primaries, and if it is mandated, does that change your answer as to whether anyone can vote in them? Why or why not on the first part and what makes the difference if you changed your answer on the second part?
The standard post election research data in each instance of 2016 and 2024.Do you have anything from a non-bias source to back up this assertion? Or is it just an assumption because Trump won?
I feel I should be able to vote on the boards of companies in which I do not own stock.
And this has what to do with the points I raised? I'm happy that you did so, but it's not relates to my points.I voted for a Republican in 2024's primary because I preferred that candidate over Trump or Biden/Harris.
I would differ in that if a party is going to allow me vote, despite not being a member, then I will accept the invitation. My overall position is that they should not be required to.I also live in Colorado. I am listed as non-affiliated and when I get the ballots, I throw them both in the trash.
Since I'm not a member of any political party, I don't think I have the right to vote in any party's primary. Choosing a party's candidate should be done by party members, and not by anybody else.
First, I don't know where.you are getting your information from, so I don't know if it's a biased source or not. Secondly I don't know if you are misreading the data because I don't know what data you are reading. It's your assertion, your obligation to support. If I have a counter then it is up to me to provide the support for the counter. But I don't know if I am supporting or rejecting your assertion, since I don't know the basis of itThe standard post election research data in each instance of 2016 and 2024.
Data readily available and commonly known and referenced that I've been referencing since 2017.
Your being uninformed and unaware is on you to resolve. For example, one can search how did Independents vote for president in 2016 and in 2024?
So called independents have been critical to Trump's wins in those election years. They are the voters who have enabled Trump's 21st Century Uniquely American Fascism that is upon the land right now.
Party affiliation should be mandatory for voting. Similarly, I think any voter that switches affiliation within 6 months of a primary vote ought to be scrutinized. People have every right to vote however they want in a general election. They have no right to attempt to sway the outcome of a parties nomination process.
I was referring to the following part of what you said. Maybe I misunderstood your context, and I offer my apologies for not being clear.And this has what to do with the points I raised? I'm happy that you did so, but it's not relates to my points.
they would want to vote for who they think is the best person in all parties.
Party primaries are PARTY primaries. As such, they have the right to do what they can to protect their primaries from unaffiliated individuals attempts to sway their party candidates.That idea amounts to taxation without representation. After all, its not as if political parties pay for the cost of ‘their’ primary elections.
Party primaries are PARTY primaries.
As such, they have the right to do what they can to protect their primaries from unaffiliated individuals attempts to sway their party candidates.
Does not matter. And frankly I'd be fine if they killed public funding. A primary election is meant to allow a party to select their candidate. You may find it hard to believe, but there are actually corrupt ****s out there that would vote in other party's primary just to try to negatively impact them.Who funds them?
Its pretty much what the democrat party did in 2016 and 2024. Some would say it was less than effective.Get rid of primary elections and permit parties to choose their candidates internally. As is done in 99.99% of the world.
Its pretty much what the democrat party did in 2016 and 2024. Some would say it was less than effective.
So lately, I have been seeing ads for a group (or maybe groups? Didn't really pay attention to names) pushing for laws to allow people who are not registered with a political party to vote in that party's primary election. So I wanted to see what opinions were on the issue.
I find myself of two minds here. On the one hand I would love the ability to vote in any and all primaries to help pick the best candidates for each. As a party independent libertarian, I have liked or prefered candidates from all the parties. On the other hand, I fully recognize that the political parties are not part of the government system and as such are subject to the same freedoms and limits as other private organizations. In reality, neither the Republican nor the Democrat parties are required to have primary elections. Most of the third parties don't. While it is right and proper that a person not be prevented from voting in a primary due to race, age (save age of majority), sex, etc, I find that there is no compelling argument as to why someone who is not registered to the party should be allowed to participate in what is essentially a private affair. In fact, I would be willing to bet that if it became mandatory for primaries to allow all voters, not just party registered ones, to vote in the primaries, the GOP would simply not hold them. I hold the position that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to force them to use a primary for their candidate selection. Democrats would probably continue to hold them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too just got rid of them.
So, let's hear what you all have to say. Should we allow anyone (assume properly registered to vote regardless of party affiliation) to vote in primaries? Why or why not? Should we mandate that the parties have primaries, and if it is mandated, does that change your answer as to whether anyone can vote in them? Why or why not on the first part and what makes the difference if you changed your answer on the second part?
Does not matter.
In areas dominated by one party, especially rural areas, voters might cross party lines in the primary to have more of a say in their local races.
“In my county, all the local races are Republican. Judges, sheriff, district attorney,” Martha Mims, a Democratic voter who lives Williamson County, wrote in The Texas Tribune’s Facebook group, This is Your Texas. “If I want to have a say in local government, I have to vote in the Republican primary.”
And frankly I'd be fine if they killed public funding. A primary election is meant to allow a party to select their candidate. You may find it hard to believe, but there are actually corrupt ****s out there that would vote in other party's primary just to try to negatively impact them.
And yet such shenanigans don't happen. Would you really give up your vote in the Republican primary in order to try to give the edge to a less popular Dem in their primary?If I were a member of a party in VA, I would be totally against that system. It invites shenanigans...for example, Republicans could flood the Democratic primary and prevent the candidate that the Dems want from getting the nomination and vice versa. I don't see how either party would want your system...unless they want those shenanigans to be an option.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?