Voting against Joe tomorrow...

FatherTed

I live in Connecticut, was registered as an Independant but last wee I changed my party affiliation to the Democrats so I can vote against Joe Lieberman in tomorrow's primary. Mainly for being George Bush's lap-dog.

lostexpectation

FatherTed wrote:

I live in Connecticut, was registered as an Independant but last wee I changed my party affiliation to the Democrats so I can vote against Joe Lieberman in tomorrow's primary. Mainly for being George Bush's lap-dog.

i find that whole registering as... thing very strange and scary... I though anybody could vote in a primary?

FatherTed

Primaries are used to select the party candidates. Don't you have to be a registered member of your local FF/FG/PD/L etc branch so you can be allowed to vote for the party candidate? That is more or less the same.

Can anyone vote in a primary? It depends where you are e.g. most states like Connecticut, you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered under, other states, it is open to all voters regardless of party affiliation.

gandalf

Is it just me or do others find US democracy hard to follow ? They seem to be complicating something that should be simple to understand!!

Victor

FatherTed wrote:

Primaries are used to select the party candidates. Don't you have to be a registered member of your local FF/FG/PD/L etc branch so you can be allowed to vote for the party candidate? That is more or less the same.

But not at the state's expense.

Also, all the FG voters can't register as FF voters and nominate teh worst candidate.

Manic Moran

Victor wrote:

But not at the state's expense.

Also, all the FG voters can't register as FF voters and nominate teh worst candidate.

Well, that's no change. You can't do that here either.

Some parties allow non-registered voters (eg independents, like myself) to vote in their primaries, but since the primaries are dealt with through the state's voting system, they can ensure that you do not register for more than one party's primary.

American electoral system is actually pretty easy to follow. It sucketh large, but it's easy to follow.

NTM

lostexpectation

but there seems to be such a emphasis on registering as a D or a R, and it seems to follow you around so much, it just strange that I don't ever hear someone say are you a registered FG'er? It seems to be so important that you register before the vote that you are going to vote one way the other which seems to get rid of the whole secrecy and surprise of your vote??

which seems to do nothing but enable them to pull tricks and harrasment at elections

FatherTed

Just because you are registered for one party doesnt mean you cannot vote for another during the November elections. Registering for a particulat party allows you to vote in a primary for that party. Which most people don't.

lostexpectation

FatherTed wrote:

Just because you are registered for one party doesnt mean you cannot vote for another during the November elections. Registering for a particulat party allows you to vote in a primary for that party.


Which most people don't.

so why do the american parties spend so much time and effort to get people to register, to an infitnite degree more then over here?


I was reading a site the other day where they put out a stall supposedly to gather signatures for a petition for pro-cannabis legaliation, but when the people went to sign they discovered it was actually a scam by paid republican activists to con people into registering republican

LostinBlanch

Well from my reading of it isn't Lieberman likely to lose the primary? But he said he'll run as an independent, and is still likely to take the seat with all the republicans voting for him in order to keep proper dems out.

Tyrone

FatherTed wrote:

I live in Connecticut, was registered as an Independant but last wee I changed my party affiliation to the Democrats so I can vote against Joe Lieberman in tomorrow's primary. Mainly for being George Bush's lap-dog.

Well Old Joe Lieberman lost the democrat primary. So now he will run on the Independant ticket and split the vote between the democrats and republicans.
Which means either a republican or Old Joe will win the senate seat. The democrats screwed themselves on this one. When will they ever learn.

Just curious FatherTed, but why would you vote against someone?

Do you consider one the lesser of two evils, why not support a candidate
that has your views.

I find it strange that Joe Lieberman has voted with the democrats 90 percent of the time and you reject him. You must be a one issue man.

Manic Moran

Just curious FatherTed, but why would you vote against someone?

Do you consider one the lesser of two evils, why not support a candidate
that has your views.

It very much is a case of the lesser of two evils, given the all-or-nothing system of voting in this country. I'm an independent, and tend to vote along Libertarian lines in most cases, but when it comes to the Presidential and Gubernatorial elections, will usually plug for a Republican because much though I dislike many of the current Republican policies, I have even greater objection to Democratic policies, and will thus vote to endeavour that given my own choice of candidate hasn't a hope, the least damaging one gets in.

I don't see this situation changing until the two main parties (Or at least the Democrats, for me) come up with more moderate candidates out of the primaries, in which I could vote for a third party without worry too much that when the Democrat wins, policies I strongly object to would be put into place.

NTM

FatherTed

LostinBlanch wrote:

Well from my reading of it isn't Lieberman likely to lose the primary? But he said he'll run as an independent, and is still likely to take the seat with all the republicans voting for him in order to keep proper dems out.

Lamont will now win in November. Noone in the Democratic party will endorse Lieberman now plus more importantly, money will now flow into Lamont's campaign. Plus Harry Reid could also dump Lieberman off Senate committees for defecting. CT is a heavily democratic state so even when the Repubs back Lieberman, it wont make a difference as a lot of Dem voters who voted for Joe yesterday wont vote for him in November.

Tyrone wrote:

...You must be a one issue man.

I voted for Lieberman in the past but my vote yesterday was purely on the basis on the Iraq war. So if that makes me a one issue voter, then I am.

dave2pvd

FatherTed, you were certainly at the center of the storm there with the Lieberman loss in the primary.

We had a storm down here in Atlanta too: heard of Cynthia McKinney? Lot's of Republicans crossing party lines to make sure she lost the primary.

lostexpectation

dave2pvd wrote:

FatherTed, you were certainly at the center of the storm there with the Lieberman loss in the primary.

We had a storm down here in Atlanta too: heard of Cynthia McKinney? Lot's of Republicans crossing party lines to make sure she lost the primary.

what the story with her from reading DU and American papers I gathered she was atypical no-nonsense black womens democrat but the Dem don't seem to happy with her either...

Manic Moran

She's the one that took a whack at the Capitol Policeman, isn't she?

And then demanded an apology for it or some such?

NTM

New_Departure06

Good for you. I wish we had a similar primary-system here.

oscarBravo

New_Departure06 wrote:

I wish we had a similar primary-system here.

Why?

New_Departure06

oscarBravo wrote:

Why?

To give people more of a say and to make political-parties more representative of public-opinion.

oscarBravo

New_Departure06 wrote:

To give people more of a say and to make political-parties more representative of public-opinion.

Can you explain how primaries achieve this?

New_Departure06

oscarBravo wrote:

Can you explain how primaries achieve this?

Well it allowed the Dem grass-roots to shunt out a pro-war guy in favour of an anti-war guy. The word has now gone out to the Dems: Don't support the Iraq War. Also, the people by removing the pro-war dudes/dudesses can change party policy in Congress and that gives the people more control than our system where "delegates" choose candidates. Experience has shown how out of touch these "delegates" and "branches" can be with public-opinion.

oscarBravo

OK, so how well does that translate into an Irish system, where you have to publicly declare yourself to be a FF, FG, Labour, PD, Green, SF, SP, SWP or Independent voter[1] before you can vote in a primary?

Does it strike you as compatible with the aims of a STV electoral system?





[1] ...plus whoever I forgot...

New_Departure06

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, so how well does that translate into an Irish system, where you have to publicly declare yourself to be a FF, FG, Labour, PD, Green, SF, SP, SWP or Independent voter[1] before you can vote in a primary?

Does it strike you as compatible with the aims of a STV electoral system?





[1] ...plus whoever I forgot...

Yes because I would keep the PR-STV system to choose candidates in primaries. I understand what you are saying especially with a multi-seat constituency situation. I would have the voters choose all the candidates out of a pool of candidates and they would be elected as party candidates this way a la Dail elections. See?

Tyrone

FatherTed wrote:

Lamont will now win in November. Noone in the Democratic party will endorse Lieberman now plus more importantly, money will now flow into Lamont's campaign. Plus Harry Reid could also dump Lieberman off Senate committees for defecting. CT is a heavily democratic state so even when the Repubs back Lieberman, it wont make a difference as a lot of Dem voters who voted for Joe yesterday wont vote for him in November.

I voted for Lieberman in the past but my vote yesterday was purely on the basis on the Iraq war. So if that makes me a one issue voter, then I am.

About the only thing I am one issue on is the gun issue. If the man is anti gun he is out. If he is neutral and the other is pro gun then I vote for whoever has the best credentials. I have always figured a man ought to trust his goverment as much as they trust you. If your anti-gun then you don't trust me.

As far as the choices of candidates offered up by the two major parties. I have a major problem with that. The main one being that you will never see
a plumber, carpenter or small bussinessman win an election simply because he is not a millionaire or well connected with one.

The other major problem is once in office they all become millionaires thanks to their new friends who like a friend in high places.

Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

History has shown us the corruption of both parties.

dave2pvd

I'm thread-diverging here a bit. Earlier questions re McKinney: yes she's the police officer puncher woman.

She purports to be unafraid to speak her mind, one of the only reps who will stand up to Bush, etc. The reality is that she is ranked very, very low on any surveys of effectiveness in DC. When she speaks her mind, what comes out doesn't always make much sense. At least in this world. She frequently uses race issues/racism to fire up her congressional district. Folks have started to see through her now though. A much more moderate black dem will be contesting the elections now. And he'll win too - Republicans don't get elected in that district.

Manic Moran

To give people more of a say and to make political-parties more representative of public-opinion.

New_Departure06 wrote:

Well it allowed the Dem grass-roots to shunt out a pro-war guy in favour of an anti-war guy. The word has now gone out to the Dems: Don't support the Iraq War. Also, the people by removing the pro-war dudes/dudesses can change party policy in Congress and that gives the people more control than our system where "delegates" choose candidates. Experience has shown how out of touch these "delegates" and "branches" can be with public-opinion.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really work out that way in the long term, especially when the primary is focused on a single issue. Primaries do not reflect public opinion: They reflect the opinions of that segment of the population who are registered to vote in that one party's primary. They have no bearing on what the rest of the population thinks.

For example, let's say 40% of the electorate of CT are registered Democrats or registered to vote in the Democratic primary. Just over half of them voted for the anti-Iraq-war guy. If we assume that the Iraq war was the single voting issue in question (which is not necessarily the case), that basically means that 20% of the voting populace of the state of CT have stated that they want the US out of Iraq right now. When you look at the fact that more Democrats than Republicans (Another 40% of the CT electorate.. these are rough guesses leaving 20% for Greens, Libertarians, etc)* are against the Iraq war, that average goes down even further when it comes to the multi-party elections. It goes down further yet again when one realises that there may be other policies at hand: Maybe the Iraq War wasn't the single issue for some other single-issue-voters, but Lamont is pro-gun, and Lieberman is anti-gun. (I don't know if that's true)

By way of a counter-example: Let's say that the Green Party (10% of the electorate, number out of posterior) has a primary. The difference between the two candidates is that one is pro-fossil fuel power, the other is anti fossil power. The anti fossil guy wins with 100% of the vote. This proves absolutely nothing for the other 90% of the voting population, but shows that the guy who ran on the platform which is generally in compliance with that party's position will win that party's vote. Not exactly an Einsteinian revelation.

What we then have is a case of non-moderate candidates facing off each other in the multi-party elections because each party tends to choose the one most in line with their party's own perspectives. Those of us in the middle are stuck between a rock** and a hard place.***

NTM

*I'm taking something akin to a generic nationwide tally here, I believe CT is actually more Democrat-heavy than many states)

**The Anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, God Squad Republican candidates that Republicans like

*** The candidates chosen by the Democrats to best represent their spineless and anti-gun philosophies.

Victor

As an unrepentant Corkistani National Party supporter, what's to stop me registering as a Corkistani Republican Party supporter, voting in the first round for the least capable CRaP candidate and then voting for my own CNP candidate in the final round?

Manic Moran

Nothing.

The catch, however, is that the candidate that the CNP puts forward may not be the one that you would prefer. You can only register for one primary. By using your vote to sabotage the CRP's system to help the most useless chap win, you run the risk that the CNP puts forward a useless chap of its own because you had excluded yourself from voting for a more capable candidate.

NTM