Allowing independents and third party members to vote in primaries.

[Mycroft]

And yet such shenanigans don't happen.

LOL!!

They do happen.

An Associated Press analysis of early voting records from data firm L2 found that more than 37,000 people who voted in Georgia’s Democratic primary two years ago cast ballots in last week’s Republican primary, an unusually high number of so-called crossover voters. Even taking into account the limited sample of early votes, the data reveal that crossover voters were consequential in defeating Trump’s hand-picked candidates for secretary of state and, to a lesser extent, governor.

Some Democrats voting in GOP primaries to block Trump picks

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger probably would not have won last week’s Republican primary without Democrats.

apnews.com

Here's another article...

Democrats' bold strategy could upend GOP primaries

Some Democrats are registering as Republicans to vote in the party's upcoming primaries.

www.newsweek.com

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?

I don't vote in any party's primary because I'm not a member of any party...so no.

 

[Tangmo]

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 it

I'm not your research assistant and I suggested to you where to go for your enlightenment.

I suggested you go directly to: How did Independents vote for president in 2016 and in 2024?

Your egocentric post presuming to instruct the processes of debate is instead resistant to self discovery.

I reiterate the knowledge deficit in your posts can be corrected by you yourself by applying discovery learning. That MagaMericans reject facts since 2015 and daily deny facts precludes any efforts by me to present any MAGA with facts and reality. Which is why I told you where to go.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

It's all good. My post and point might not have been clear to you. Or maybe I misread your intent to provide an example (thinking about this later), as making a point.

 

[maquiscat]

I'm not your research assistant and I suggested to you where to go for your enlightenment.

I suggested you go directly to: How did Independents vote for president in 2016 and in 2024?

Your egocentric post presuming to instruct the processes of debate is instead resistant to self discovery.

I reiterate the knowledge deficit in your posts can be corrected by you yourself by applying discovery learning. That MagaMericans reject facts since 2015 and daily deny facts precludes any efforts by me to present any MAGA with facts and reality. Which is why I told you where to go.

Wait! You think I am part of MAGA?

I gave you your change to support and explain, but no. According to Pew, in 2016, independants were evenly split between Hillary and Trump, with about 15% voting third party. In 2024, more independents voted for Harris than for Trump with even less of them voting third party. So no independants really didn't give us Trump.

 

[Tangmo]

Wait! You think I am part of MAGA?

Your posts resist and deflect from searching the following: "How did Independents vote for president in 2016 and in 2024?"

That you just will not do it is on you.

 

[maquiscat]

Your posts resist and deflect from searching the following: "How did Independents vote for president in 2016 and in 2024?"

That you just will not do it is on you.

Check the update. I had accidentally hit the post before finishing it up.

Also how is asking you to support your assertion or asking where your information is coming from being MAGA? MAGA's don't even bother with that. They just disclaim. Check the first line of my sig. Tell me any MAGA would admit such a thing

 

[Perotista]

I think that independents and third party members should be allowed to vote in primaries.

The right to vote is the cornerstone principle of any democracy.

Personally, I don’t think it makes a difference. 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. That’s but 11% of all registered voters in Georgia. Compare that to the 5.4 million Georgians who voted in the 2024 presidential election or 72% of all registered voters. Unless one is a diehard, very partisan democrat or republican, political junkie so to speak, primaries don’t draw much interest. At least in Georgia, a state where independents, swing voters are allowed to vote in the primaries, they can even choose which primary.

Taking a SWAG, I would say only a handful of independents voted in the Georgia primaries. 5% or less. Even though independents make up 43% of the electorate, they made up only 31% of those who actually voted in the presidential general election.

 

[maquiscat]

Wait! You think I am part of MAGA?

I gave you your change to support and explain, but no. According to Pew, in 2016, independants were evenly split between Hillary and Trump, with about 15% voting third party. In 2024, more independents voted for Harris than for Trump with even less of them voting third party. So no independants really didn't give us Trump.

@Tangmo BTW, it turns out that about 4% of Democrats voted for Trump in 2024 and Harris lost by 2%, so it seem that those few Democrats are the ones that handed Trump the win.

 

[Tangmo]

Here is the real bottom line, while others hide behind party protections and pretending to understand law, the intention of the idea is to make it easier for a party to conduct a primary entirely based on how "their exclusive club" feels about the lot vying to get the party nod.

If that is what ends up happening so be it, but it empowers Republicans and Democrats to become even more two-faced. Say one thing to achieve the vote from their club, then all of a sudden shift to go obtain votes from everyone else not in the club. Meaning this is not about ethics, morals, or otherwise.

Said another way, this encourages politicians to lie all that more often, to the apparent cheers of club membership.

The stark choice for voters in 2024 was liberal democracy vs fascist dictatorship.

Independents elected Trump this past November saying fascism is fine just lower my expenses.

Independent voters put Trump over the top in 2016 to set in motion the continuous daily horrors, madness and destruction Trump and His MagaMericans have done increasingly even while Biden was Potus.

So called independent voters have put Trump and his madhouse acolytes in power and authority to implement their 21st Century Uniquely American Fascism. Indeed, and as your post testifies, independents have always hated the two party system so they have worked tirelessly over decades to wreck it. This is when America has either a two party system or the one single party system of dictatorship.

 

[Tangmo]

@Tangmo BTW, it turns out that about 4% of Democrats voted for Trump in 2024 and Harris lost by 2%, so it seem that those few Democrats are the ones that handed Trump the win.

Many Independents have the Democratic party as their favorite target and this has been true for decades. These many "independent" voters insist on giving Republicans a free ride.

In 2024 Independents in the swing states elected Trump again, just as Independents in the swing states elected Trump in 2016.

Independents in the swing states elected Biden in 2020 to complement Biden carrying independents decisively nationwide.

In 2024 Harris carried Independents 49% to Trump's 46% but swing state independents who have no problem accepting American Fascism voted for Trump to lower their household expenses. You self identify here as an independent and your posts are doing what so many independents do over decades which is to target the Democratic party. Trump and MagaMericans and their 21st Century Uniquely American Fascism get your free ride.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Analysis_of_results

 

[Tangmo]

I gave you your change to support and explain, but no. According to Pew, in 2016, independants were evenly split between Hillary and Trump, with about 15% voting third party. In 2024, more independents voted for Harris than for Trump with even less of them voting third party. So no independants really didn't give us Trump.

As I have posted to the thread "independents" in the swing states elected Trump in 2016 and "independents" in the swing states elected Trump in 2024.

And that by 2024 the voters had the stark and naked choice of liberal democracy vs fascist dictatorship.

So called independents in the usual suspect swing states of 2024 said fascism is fine as long as it lowers their household expenses. Yet now these moron voters have fascism with tariffs and the accelerated movement to a one party state.

So called independents have for decades pined to smash the two party system. This is when the only real and actual alternative is the single party state of Trump and His MagaMericans.

 

[maquiscat]

Many Independents have the Democratic party as their favorite target and this has been true for decades. These many "independent" voters insist on giving Republicans a free ride.

In 2024 Independents in the swing states elected Trump again, just as Independents in the swing states elected Trump in 2016.

Independents in the swing states elected Biden in 2020 to complement Biden carrying independents decisively nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Analysis_of_results

I am not finding anything in this article that is specifically attributing any wins to either person in the two elections as being due to independants. Show and quote the numbers. Now I do understand that you are interpreting what is there as such. And for that matter, I am not even claiming that you are wrong. I'm just not simply going to accept your word on it unless you can show me the actual numbers.

You self identify here as an independent and your posts are doing what so many independents do over decades which is to target the Democratic party. Trump and MagaMericans and their 21st Century Uniquely American Fascism get your free ride.

I'm not targeting either party here. That is your own bias showing. I have voted for Republicans (I had seriously hoped for Larry Hogan to run this past election and still hope to see him in 2028), Democrats (Harris was my vote this past year), and various third parties (Stein (Green) in 2016 and Johnson (Libertarian) in 2012). There is nothing that Trump has done that I can recall ever supporting, and if you ever frequent the Abortion or Sex and Sexuality forums, you'll find that my views there are firmly on the liberal side of things. Again look at the first line of my sig and try to tell me that any MAGA would make such a claim. However, my personal position doesn't mean that I should just accept any claim that you throw out simply because it is against Trump.

 

[maquiscat]

So called independents have for decades pined to smash the two party system.

I'll agree to this. Every other country where they are getting things right in terms of healthcare and worker protections, among other issues, has three or more active political parties in power. So yes, smash the two party system. While better than a one party system, it is only slightly more so.

 

[Tangmo]

Check the update. I had accidentally hit the post before finishing it up.

Also how is asking you to support your assertion or asking where your information is coming from being MAGA? MAGA's don't even bother with that. They just disclaim. Check the first line of my sig. Tell me any MAGA would admit such a thing

As revealed in your post #58 your posts were all along lying in wait with your 4% of Democrats voting for Trump in '24. This made no difference given "independent" voters in the swing states put Trump over the top once again, just as so called "independent" voters in the swing states put Trump over the top in 2016 to enable and begin Trump's 10 years of continuous destruction day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year indeterminately.

By 2024 so called "independents" in the swing states said fascist dictatorship is fine if it just lowers their household expenses. Which is does not do of course and never was going to do. The problem with "independent" voters is that they don't know whether they're coming or going. And that you guys keep meeting yourselves on the way back.

 

[Tangmo]

I am not finding anything in this article that is specifically attributing any wins to either person in the two elections as being due to independants. Show and quote the numbers. Now I do understand that you are interpreting what is there as such. And for that matter, I am not even claiming that you are wrong. I'm just not simply going to accept your word on it unless you can show me the actual numbers.

Of course not.

This is why I don't bother trying to argue with people who don't find or accept the facts of votes being counted, how they add up and what they say prima facie. The numbers you can't and won't find are in the link of course.

Your posts will continue to assert until the cows come home the vote totals are my posting bias which they are not. The vote totals and their demographics are the numbers. There's no denying this although this is the purpose of your posts, absurdly so.

Indeed, my self allotted time to deal with slippery posters who keep falling down by refusing the facts is quickly expiring. So I'm advising you that now that your game has been called out by my posts it and I are not going to go on forever. I have made my point thx.

 

[Tangmo]

I'll agree to this. Every other country where they are getting things right in terms of healthcare and worker protections, among other issues, has three or more active political parties in power. So yes, smash the two party system. While better than a one party system, it is only slightly more so.

So called independents have for decades pined to smash the two party system. This continues when the only real and actual alternative is the single party state of Trump and His MagaMericans.

Trump does not tolerate any opposition or dissent in any form, never mind a three party system that is impossible since Trump and MagaMericans who are relentlessly destroying the two party system for their single party MAGA state.

Your "independent" long term and assertive advocacy of a multi party democracy is and always has been fantasy or it is downright cynical.

 

[Bum]

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?

I think the current system is completely broken and needs to be overhauled.

 

[VanceMack]

Of course it matters, especially when one knows which party’s candidate(s) will very likely win in the general election.

Texas is an open primary state. Here’s what that means for how Republicans, Democrats and others can vote on Super Tuesday.

Texas is one of 17 states with open primaries, which means regardless of which party voters identify with, they can choose from year to year which party’s nominees they’d like to select in a primary election.

www.texastribune.org

No,,,it doesnt. Parties define primary rules.

 

[VanceMack]

BOTH parties have done it. Trump did his best to suppress primaries against him in 2020 and 2024. And it has been done at other times.

But primaries should not exist at all, for ANY party. We got some of our best Presidential candidates back in the day in smoke filled rooms.

Without primaries, we would never have gotten President Trump or President Biden at all.

Parties would want to ensure their candidates are "team players" within the party. That would exclude Trump.

Parties would want to ensure their candidates are fit. That would have excluded Biden.

Only in the world of primary elections could either man have made it to the White House, when neither man should have been permitted within a 1,000 miles of the White House.

You want aurefire way to disenfranchise citizens and voters...tell them who they have to vote for.

 

[maquiscat]

As revealed in your post #58 your posts were all along lying in wait with your 4% of Democrats voting for Trump in '24.

Not hat you'll believe it, but I didn't look up those sources until after you refused to provide your own. So no lying in wait. Your bias is showing again.

This made no difference given "independent" voters in the swing states put Trump over the top once again, just as so called "independent" voters in the swing states put Trump over the top in 2016 to enable and begin Trump's 10 years of continuous destruction day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year indeterminately.

Given that more independents voted for Harris than Trump, and even less voted third party, they only way this works is with a fantasy that even a single independent voting Trump works towards giving the election to Trump. By being independent, some will go to Trump, some to Harris and a few to third party. Independants prefered Harris 53 to 44.

By 2024 so called "independents" in the swing states said fascist dictatorship is fine if it just lowers their household expenses. Which is does not do of course and never was going to do. The problem with "independent" voters is that they don't know whether they're coming or going. And that you guys keep meeting yourselves on the way back.

At this rate, you are sounding rather conspiracy theorist on what and who independent voters are.

Of course not.

This is why I don't bother trying to argue with people who don't find or accept the facts of votes being counted, how they add up and what they say prima facie. The numbers you can't and won't find are in the link of course.

Then you can quote that which you support. The problem with people like you is that you want to throw out links (when you even bother to do so), and claim they say something but then refuse to ever quote the part that supports your argument, especially when using long articles. I assert that the numbers are not there, not the ones claiming what you assert. I can't prove that beyond pointing that out. However, yours is the positive claim and can be proven. Thus it's up to you.

Your posts will continue to assert until the cows come home the vote totals are my posting bias which they are not. The vote totals and their demographics are the numbers. There's no denying this although this is the purpose of your posts, absurdly so.

And the vote totals show that independents voted for Harris 53 to 44, thus countering your assertion. Further, you have asserted that it is the independants in certain swing states that actually caused Trump to win, and yet your linked article has no state by state breakdown in order to show this point. So no, you have not provided the numbers. Further, simply because there are independent voters who voted Trump, that doesn't mean that it was the independent voters who actually tipped the scales. On top of all of this, just looking a the percentages is no enough. If there were only, for example's sake, 100 independent voters, even 53 to 44 becomes irrelevant. At 100 even 100% voting one way won't make a difference. Hence why the numbers, at the state level, both raw and percentage, are important is determining the validity of your claim

Indeed, my self allotted time to deal with slippery posters who keep falling down by refusing the facts is quickly expiring. So I'm advising you that now that your game has been called out by my posts it and I are not going to go on forever. I have made my point thx.

Do as your wish. My second sig line is not exclusive to me. Although I find it interesting that you still seem to assume I am MAGA with the first line being what it is.

So called independents have for decades pined to smash the two party system. This continues when the only real and actual alternative is the single party state of Trump and His MagaMericans.

Trump does not tolerate any opposition or dissent in any form, never mind a three party system that is impossible since Trump and MagaMericans who are relentlessly destroying the two party system for their single party MAGA state.

Your "independent" long term and assertive advocacy of a multi party democracy is and always has been fantasy or it is downright cynical.

Now your are engaging in conflation. And since multi-party democracies are reality in the world currently, are no more of a fantasy than someone from pre-civil war era saying that the south can work slave free. Plenty f things have been claimed fantasy and hen have come true, and this one is already true, even if not in the US.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No,,,it doesnt. Parties define primary rules.

Nope, which is why primary election laws vary by state.

 

[maquiscat]

Nope, which is why primary election laws vary by state.

To a point they do. Parties determine whether or not they will use an election system for their selection process, and if so, whether they do it themselves or if they let the state do it. If the state is the one doing it, then the state does fet.to say how they will run that election, and if they party don't like it the party can find another way to make their selection. There is no law of constitutional requirement for a political party to use any given state's election system for the choosing of the candidate to be listed on the general election ballot

 

[VanceMack]

Nope, which is why primary election laws vary by state.

So...thats a choice thing then........

I'll say it again...allowing non party members to have a say in a party nomination process is ****ing stupid.

 

[Tangmo]

Not hat you'll believe it, but I didn't look up those sources until after you refused to provide your own. So no lying in wait. Your bias is showing again.
Given that more independents voted for Harris than Trump, and even less voted third party, they only way this works is with a fantasy that even a single independent voting Trump works towards giving the election to Trump. By being independent, some will go to Trump, some to Harris and a few to third party. Independants prefered Harris 53 to 44. At this rate, you are sounding rather conspiracy theorist on what and who independent voters are. Then you can quote that which you support. The problem with people like you is that you want to throw out links (when you even bother to do so), and claim they say something but then refuse to ever quote the part that supports your argument, especially when using long articles. I assert that the numbers are not there, not the ones claiming what you assert. I can't prove that beyond pointing that out. However, yours is the positive claim and can be proven. Thus it's up to you. And the vote totals show that independents voted for Harris 53 to 44, thus countering your assertion. Further, you have asserted that it is the independants in certain swing states that actually caused Trump to win, and yet your linked article has no state by state breakdown in order to show this point. So no, you have not provided the numbers. Further, simply because there are independent voters who voted Trump, that doesn't mean that it was the independent voters who actually tipped the scales. On top of all of this, just looking a the percentages is no enough. If there were only, for example's sake, 100 independent voters, even 53 to 44 becomes irrelevant. At 100 even 100% voting one way won't make a difference. Hence why the numbers, at the state level, both raw and percentage, are important is determining the validity of your claim. Do as your wish. My second sig line is not exclusive to me. Although I find it interesting that you still seem to assume I am MAGA with the first line being what it is. Now your are engaging in conflation. And since multi-party democracies are reality in the world currently, are no more of a fantasy than someone from pre-civil war era saying that the south can work slave free. Plenty f things have been claimed fantasy and hen have come true, and this one is already true, even if not in the US.

By 2024 so called "independents" in the swing states said fascist dictatorship is fine if it just lowers their household expenses. Which it does not do of course and never was going to do.

This is why I don't bother trying to argue with people who don't find or accept the facts of votes being counted, how they add up and what they say prima facie. The numbers you can't and won't find are in the link I provided -- of course. Yet and despite this such milquetoast posters wave the hand to dismiss the data as "bias" which is obtuse indeed.

The wall of words that continues below the line in your post that says "bias bias bias" reveals and exposes the deep dive independents have made since long ago into themselves and only, the same as Trump. The fact is that so called independents in the swing states put Trump over the top in 2016 to begin the day in and day out horrors of his madness in the WH -- and out of it in between residences -- and the fact is so called independents in the swing states put Trump over the top again in 2024 when the bargain was Trump could have his fascist state in return for lowering household expenses.

 

[NolanVoyd]

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?

Should I be able to vote for leadership of the Elks Lodge, or the Rotary Club if I'm not an Elk or a Rotarian?