There has been an on-going discussion on this blog about political parties, who belongs to which, and what our respective obligations are to a political party. It is safe to say that there are a fair number of Republicans on here. Some people are tea party Republicans, some folks are fiscal conservative Reagan-type Republicans, and some are generic Republicans.
There don’t seem to be card-carrying Democrats here but there are quite a few people who tend to be democratic supporters and voters. I was once an informal Republican and later became a card-carrying Democrat. Occasionally there were people chosen locally, state, or on the national evel who were just bad actors. I ran in to some folks I simply couldn’t vote for. So what do you do? I am an Independent now and have been for probably 20 years. I have no party localities.
Steve feels it is a matter of principle to vote for a Republican, since he is also an officer in the City organization. Is there a point where you shouldn’t just vote for party and should follow your conscience? What earmarks should we look for? It almost seems like we could end up electing the next Hitler if we don’t have some mental stops in place.
Certainly both parties have had their share of people who really should not have had the public trust. I am not sure we can trust the public or those in political parties to always exercise the best judgement. Power corrupts and winning an election really is about power.
Then there are the detractors and the distractors, the pledges, the sub-groups and the third parties. Are those deal breakers? Spoilers? Can a sub-group destroy a political party by changing the complexion and tenor of the parent group? At what point can a political party send a sub-group packing? Does anyone want the Klan to join up with their party? How about the black panthers? Both of those sub-groups are extremist to me and to most others. But what about when we don’t see our group as extremist? Are we the best judges in this case? Does the main party have the right to ask these groups to leave or at least distance themselves?
It’s something to talk about. We have all skirted around some of these issues. Let’s butt heads with this one. (gently of course)
I’m an independent. I find that neither party fully represents what I consider to be important. I lean to the left on social issues and am more conservative with my money. I’ll generally pull the lever for Democrats or an occasional third party candidate. The only Republicans I’ve voted for in the last several decades have been local candidates.
Although I have donated money to several candidates’ campaigns (including out-of-state campaigns), I’ve found my money better spent on issues that are important to me so I’ve donated to Emily’s List, ACLU, NARAL, ASPCA, etc.. It’s a way of saying ,”I’m not going to support any stinker a party chooses to nominat but I’m going to be represented”.
I’d prefer to see at least a couple more viable parties emerge. I feel that this would force more compromise on issues of importance to all Americans – although some European friends say it just leads to chaos.
No one in my family has ever joined a political party. We’re all independents – even my Republican-leaning sibling. Voting a party line is foreign to us.
I told my husband that our mailman must think we are schizophrenic communists.
It is difficult for me to address this issue because I simply won’t vote for or against someone because of party.
I probably have less patience with third party because that often serves as a spoiler. Truthfully, the third parties are rarely issues I get all that worked up over.
No Democrats here! Nothing but us independents! I suppose the Democratic party isn’t far left enough.
I spent the last few days in NY. One of my favorite sparring partners is my cousin’s partner. She threatens him within an inch of his life if he starts political discussions because he’s rabidly right-wing and most of her friends are moderate in their political leanings. I asked him which Republican he supported – a given – and he said he liked Paul but knew he didn’t stand a chance. I asked what he’d do if Paul, after losing the Republican nomination, ran as an independent. He was appalled because he said it would split the vote and Obama would win. A spoiler.
Third parties indeed can be spoilers. Without Ralph Nader in the race, perhaps we’d have been spared Bush’s presidency. However, if we expect parties to reform or moderate, we have to give them some incentive or threat and a third party candidate can do that. It’s just unfortunate that most have been extreme in their positions.
I do understand having allegiance to a single party – and the Republicans do a good job of getting our their message (how many times do we hear job killing), and staying united, in lock step. What I do not like (both parties) is when they choose a candidate for office, and try to ram that candidate down our throats, because it was their turn (think Dole in 1996). The Democrats do not seem to have the same loyalty in their blood lines – they are often off message, and will splinter rather quickly.
The Repubicans are organized. They also always get the message out better. By that I mean they define the message–always. The Democrats are always still looking around asking how that happened.
Just an observation.
You’re kidding, right? The Republicans? Organized? There’s a reason the conservative bloggers call them “the Stupid Party.”
They define the message? Seriously…what message is that? Is Ron Paul’s message the same as Romney’s? If those two ever come into physical contact, they’ll annihilate each other like matter-antimatter. Are the “traditional” Republicans that are voting more more of the same identical to the “Tea Party” Republicans?
Or are you talking about the most recent elections in which a more conservative message resonated with the voters?
Anyway….back on topic….
The reality is that America works best with a two party system that encompasses many “flavors” of political thought. When a party with more extreme view starts a new party, they tend to hurt that mainstream party most closely allied with it by drawing off voters. BUT that same movement provides a wake up call to said party.
I vote Republican. Not because I’m a Republican. But because those running as Republicans tend to most reflect my political philosophy. And if there had been a more conservative Democrat running against McCain, I probably would have voted for that person. Example….Zell Miller vs McCain….Miller wins my vote.
But…I also see the big picture. The battle for ideology is in the primary, not the general election.
As for the title of this thread: Discard party promises? Why would we do that? Perhaps I don’t understand. If a party or candidate makes promises that you support, why wouldn’t you hold them accountable. That is why the GOP is the target of the Tea Party. We’re trying to influence the only party whose platform is most closely aligned to us. We demand that the politicians that espouse those principles and ask for our vote do more than pay lip service.
Otherwise there is no difference between the parties. Both are taking us to the same place, just at different speeds.
@Cargosquid
This is living proof that if I said the sun rose in the east, you would contradict me. I paid a compliment to Republicans, you contradicted. I am speaking in generalities. The Republicans are better organized. They put their candidates up on the website in a timely manner. They define their message early and often. 4 years ago I had to call the Democrats to see who was running for supervisor in my district, for example.
The Republicans can also pick up a message and define it for the Democrats with lightning speed. It is rarely a good message after that. I would say that is a productive talent.
As for its internal problems? Not commenting. Not mine to comment on. I do realize that the R’s have been threatening a whole big can of whup ass on Obama but they don’t have a candidate yet or one anyone can agree on or even close. Not my problem either, but they need a candidate to beat out Obama.
Should have accepted the compliment while I was feeling generous.
Sorry Moon, Cargo is dead on as regards the GOP and the place both parties are taking us.
Locally the Republicans are better organized if for no other reason they at least field a candidate in each district.
@Pat.Herve
“What I do not like (both parties) is when they choose a candidate for office, and try to ram that candidate down our throats, because it was their turn (think Dole in 1996). ”
I hear this alot. I hear how the ubiquitous “they” “chose” a candidate, then try to “ram” this candidate down the (unwilling) throats of “us”. Respectfully, this is a canard. “They” is the respective party, made up of its members. “Chose” is an electoral selection process, specified in the respective party’s “plan” or “charter”, such as a caucus, primary, convention, mass meeting, which may be restricted to declared members of the respective party, or open to all registered voters. A legitimately nominated candidate cannot be “rammed” down “our” collective throats. If we choose not to participate in the nominee selection process, or do participate, but our preferred candidate does not secure the nomination, we cannot claim to have a candidate “rammed” down our throats. We either (through non-participation) voluntarily chose to leave the selection process up to those who did participate, or, having participated, cast our vote, but need to accept the fact that our preferred candidate lacked the majority support required to win the nomination. Now, I will accept your agrument as valid, if a nomination is uncontested, ie. only one candidate presents themself for office, and wins the nomination by default. Is that the fault of the party, or a lack of people willing to seek office? Notice I have not mentioned either party by name, as this is generally the course of events for either party. Generally, I see contested nominations as a sign of a healthy party, especially when the current office incumbant is a member of another party. Also, generally, I see challenge of a sitting/incumbent member of the party as a sign of dissention within the party, or a flawed incumbent. I say “generally”. Some incumbants have strayed so far from the party’s principles they need to be challenged from within, or are so vulnerable to defeat by the other party that it’s better to go forward with a new nominee, than to have the incumbent get the nomination by default. Lastly, if one believes that his or her party no longer represents their principles in a general sense (you can’t please 100% of the people, 100% of the time), they also have a choice: they can leave the party and become an independent, or member of another party, or, they can band together with like-minded people and work together to change the character of the party from within. If you chose to be an independent, the party you left can be called “they” as “they” no longer include “you”. But “you” cannot claim “ramming a candidate down your throat” either. You chose to leave the party. A party should be free to choose it’s nominee, and you chose to give up your role in the selection process. If you choose to remain in your party, you can choose to seek party office, and influence the character of the party, and make someone else choose whether they stay or go, or even better, present yourself for nomination as a candidate for office. This applies to all the parties. Independents, you have chosen not to join any party. You have a choice between the candidates that the parties nominate. Again, if you’ve been following the argument above, it is your choice not to join a party, so as not to become obligated to vote for a nominee from your party, with whom you disagee to a point that makes your support of them morally untenable. But even in this case, no “ramming” here either. You made lot’s of choices in case. You chose to let someone else pick the slate of choices for you.
Now, “factions” can’t take over. Parties have elections within themselves for all kinds of offices. At my level, the Chairman is elected by the assembled convention. The Vice Chairman elected by the committee. The chairman appoints members of the parties executive. He or she has clearly delineated powers, and can make decisions associated with these powers. But a significant amount of decision-making is done through majority vote, by the assembled committee. This is all spelled out in the party plan, including the methods of selecting nominees for office. The other parties, while perhaps not identical in structure or governance, most likely have a written document that describes in varying detail the governance of their party, to include their methods of nomination. Locally, I can’t tell you what the other parties nominations processes are, as they are rarely publicized when they have them (unlike the very public GOP contests), or, only a single candidate presents themselves for office (see my opinion above, regarding this as an indicator of health). The point is, the party is made up of its members who, like any group that assembles by mutual consent, have an expressed right as members to agree, again by mutual consent, to the character and governance of their group. This is why I so strongly argue that if you don’t like what your party is, make a choice: Accept it, Change it, or Leave it.
@Moon-howler
Actually, I truly was mystified by your statement. But, locally, you may be right. I wasn’t contradicting you to be obstinate. I truly did not understand where you were coming from.
Thanks for the compliment. Local organizations tend to be tighter than national ones in some locales.
and many nominations are contested, requiring an actual nominations contest. Not only better organized, but healthier too.
I must respectfully, but vigorously disagee. To whit: look at the current GOP presidential nominations contest. We have the entire GOP spectrum represented, from socially moderate/fiscally conservative, moderate/moderate, conservative/conservative, and in varying degrees within. Hunstman, Santorum, Bachman, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Cain, Romney. Lots of choice there. I think the problem is we are trying to find someone with whom we agree with 100%, who can also win. I like mint chocolate chip icecream. This is my ideal icecream choice. If presented with mint chocolate chip, or regular chocolate chip, I will choose mint 100% of the time. However, if mint chocolate chip is not available, I’ll choose regular chocolate chip over any other flavor presented. Suppose neither flavor is presented. I can choose to leave the ice cream shop, or, I can look at the assembled flavors, and choose from them. One way, I don’t get any icecream. The other way I do, except it might not be 100% to my liking. Now I could chose to open my own shop, and sell only that ice cream that I personally like: mint chocolate chip. I might even throw in the regular chocolate chip, because I can tolerate it, and those who think it’s better than mint chocolate chip. But no way will I have rum rasin or pistachio. You want that, go somewhere else…I could do that, but I wouldn’t stay in business very long.
@Steve Thomas
Even in contested nominations there are tactics which can be employed to squelch newcomers. A superior knowledge of Robert’s Rules can be used to intimidate (even though it was designed to be accommodating for both or multiple sides). Candidates can sell themselves as a group of three or four in an effort to squeeze out a particular candidate or two who might manage to be among a winning slate of four. Many people who are newcomers or not politically savvy are often turned off by these tactics and the entrenched people remain entrenched. That happens in both parties and leaves many unsatisfied participants who are often more than willing to vote outside the party.
@Censored bybvbl
“Point of order, point of order! Excuse me Mr. Chairman, POINT OF ORDER!!!”
Yet another memorable quote from our elected officials.
@Censored bybvbl
All true, but respectfully, this provides nothing except a justification for someone to run or vote as an independent. If two football teams take to the field, and one executes its plays better than the other (campaign strategy), within the structure of the rules (applicable to all participants), and scores more points (votes) than the other, does this mean the game of football is flawed? No. It just means one team was better skilled in the nuances of the game than the other. As far as “newcomers” and “establishment”, “old guard” and “young turks” go, I have seen plenty of contests where the “new comer” literally stunned the over-confident “old guard , establishment” candidate. Lemme see….yes. It’s coming to me now: 2008 Democrat primary race… “Newcomer” Obama upsets “establishment” candidate Clinton, and goes on to win the race.
The point is, the “R” or “D” next to your name, means something. If you have gone through the process (whatever that process is) to earn that “R” or “D” next to your name, you should have a reasonable expectation of the support of your party, and party members should be expected to support the nominee. This is why I wish we had registration by party here in VA. Republicans should choose their nominee. Democrats choose theirs. Libertarians theirs, American Communists theirs. If a candidate isn’t willing to earn their party’s nomination, let them run as an “I”. No shame implied.
A system without rules, isn’t a system at all. It’s anarchy.
@Lafayette
Lol! I remember that! I also remember it from a couple decades ago in a local (neighborhood election). The neighborhood election was funny. The control freak parliamentarian managed to get re-elected to the board and then had three adversaries hold her to Robert’s Rules. It was fun! She pulled a Palin and quit.
@Steve Thomas
I beg your pardon, but I hope you aren’t implying I have a problem with rules. I think you know better. It really is an “inside” joke with those that live in the county, and those that may follow the county from the sidelines. It really was out of place and very funny to watch that particular board meeting like so many others.
@Steve Thomas
What do you think of the local and state races as they’re playing out in Loudoun County? There seems to be much dissension in the “R” ranks.
@Lafayette
Lafayette, I am not implying anything, except that which was stated: a system without rules isn’t a system at all. It is anarchy.
@Steve Thomas
Thanks for clarification. I just wanted to make sure. I have a short fuse today. I didn’t think you were, but I did have to make sure. Rough couple of days on FB with a person that doesn’t even know me. It might be time to enact the BLOCK button.
It’s unruly enough around here sometimes and that’s with rules. 🙂 I can’t begin to imagine living under anarchy.
I haven’t been following their races. I don’t have a dog in that fight. How the Loudoun Party chooses to conduct its business is up to the members of their committee. How the candidates for local office choose to run their campaigns is up to them. If I lived there, I would be voting for the person with the “R” next to their name, after having had my say in the nominations contests within which I was eligible by virtue of party membership or geographic residency. Now, I will admit, I watch the PWC races a bit more closely. The reason why is obvious: Manassas (City Of) is surrounded by PWC, and we share many services. Decisions made by the BOCS do impact my life somewhat, depending on the issue. I know a few of the Supervisors pesonally, and a couple I would classify as friends, so I have an interest in the outcomes of these races. However, I prefer to let PWC “R”‘s pick their nominees, without any undo influence from me (however small that would be). I have at times, volunteered to work a campaign of a friend, but this is more out of a sense of friendship, than party affiliation, but in every case where this has occurred, the friend is also a Republican.
“This is why I wish we had registration by party here in VA. Republicans should choose their nominee. ”
Amen and the problem that we have particularly at the local level. All too often the nominee isn’t selected by the party but by a mass of people brought in to support a particular candidate, people who generally have no real party affiliation or even grasp of the issues represented by the nominees. They are simply sheep led in to effect a result. Happened in the late eighties during the Presidential race and happens often in local races (see Candland). As a result you chance getting a Candidate who represents something other (Covington/Grizzlies/Anti-Martha Developers) than the actual party.
Sorry to my Republican friends here. I love not having registration by party in the Commonwealth. Informed Independents such as myself get to vote in both primaries. I truly have voted about 50/50 R’s/D’s. Both parties have their pro’s and con’s, just like everything else under the sun. If so many are disgusted by both parties, they end up picking the lesser of two evils.
Excuse me mom, there many Independents and Democrats that went to the polls for Martha, and would have done the same in a general election. By the same token I know a lot of R’s that voted for Martha, and will NOT be voting for their party’s candidate, Candland.
@Mom
“Happened in the late eighties during the Presidential race and happens often in local races (see Candland).”
Mom, this statement intrigues me. Now I can see where a candidate could “pack a mass meeting” or convention, but all this really means is they did a better job of signing up delegates, and making sure their supporters turned out, which is GOTV. I am not sure how one packs a primary, which is a GOTV function, or for that matter, a General election. If you meant to say party nominations contests should be limited to members of the party, I am with you, 100%. Nothing precludes a member of the TEA Party from also being a member of the GOP, because the TEA Party is not a recognized party, ie. registered with the SBE. But really, any election contest will be decided by who shows up. What is funny, whenever registration by party comes up in the GA, it gets shot down by the GA. The justification is always laughable IMHO: “We want our political process to be inclusive”. Huh? Parties, by their very nature are inclusive: they include the members who chose to include themselves in a group of like-minded individuals, through mutual agreement, for a shared purpose. They are also exclusive: If you don’t like it, don’t join. No one is drafted into a party. As long as registration by party allows for someone to register “independent” I am all for it. You shouldn’t be forced to pick a party, but by doing so, you don’t get to pick another party’s nominee.
Laf, please don’t take offense but that proves the point as regards the primary process in Virginia. From a strictly partisan and party purity standpoint, primaries in the Commonwealth can be unduly influenced by forces outside the party, sometimes for good sometimes not, I guess it depends on ones particular stance in any given election. Again from a strictly partisan standpoint, having those eligible to cast a vote in a primary/convention limited to those who are registered party members diminishes that potential as it is unlikely that a majority of those willing to vote in a primary they otherwise wouldn’t would also be willing to go the extra step of registering so as to engage in the process.
Sorry, hit submit too soon as I meant to add that at the end of the day, after the primaries, Independents would stll have the option of picking the lesser of two evils.
Doesn’t the example that Mom cited (Covington/Grizzlies/Anti-Martha Developers) give a Republican whose primary interest is fiscal responsibility a reason to vote for a candidate of the other party? I don’t believe that most Republicans or Democrats are so ideologically pure that they can’t justify switching their votes to the other party when their candidate’s position on an important issue is so disparate to their own opinion. It may be the only time in a decade that they do so. To say that they have to renounce their membership in order to oppose one wacky candidate doesn’t make sense. A person can believe in lower taxes yet still believe in a woman’s right to choose. That person probably won’t vote for Dick Black.
Steve, you are correct, sorry if I wasn’t clear, I did mean party nomination contests be they primaries or conventions.
@Mom
No offense taken. I don’t vote in a primary to pick the other party’s nominee, as Steve stated could happen. If I voted for a person in the primary and they are on the ticket they get my vote in the general election. I’ve voted for loosers in the primary and gone to vote for THAT party’s nominee. This year is the FIRST time ever I will NOT be voting for the party nominee after voting in that party’s primary.
It’s the social issues that make me not want to join either party. Both parties get waaay too radical for me on social issues. Prime example Black and his plastic fetuses for a shock factor or taking a woman to court to keep her husband alive against his will. GROSS!!! These are two of the sickest things I’ve ever heard.
@Steve Thomas
Having worked a Republican convention in the city. I must ask this question, since I saw one Independent participating in the process. How is that a known INDEPENDENT would be at a Republican convention? Doesn’t one have to be a register Republican to participate in a convention? Could I move to the CoM, as known Independent and participate in a convention. I know there was NO problem what so ever with an Indpedent working for a candidate.
Lafayette,
With regards to primaries, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Regardless of how informed you are, why should any independent get to influence who the nominee for a particular party is? Now we aren’t talking general elections here. An independent, by virtue of being an independent, is under no obligation to support the nominee of either party. There is no “independent pledge”. On the flip side if you aren’t willing to pick a team, why should you be handed a jersey and allowed on the field to practice, when come game time, you can pull it off and put on the jersey of the other team? Sorry, if there is to be integrity in the process of selecting a nominee that truely represents the majority will of the party, then the nomination must be decided by members of the party. Or why shouldn’t I be able to vote in county elections? I mean, as a City Resident, how many libraries the county has open, or how they staff their fire department does impact me, since the City pays to use the library, and has a shared services agreement for public safety. Why shouldn’t I have a say in what your property tax rate is? Afterall, I need to make sure your libraries stay open, and you have enough police on the streets, as the criminals don’t respect city/county boundries? Why shouldn’t I have a say in how your schools are run? I mean, if your schools stink, then people won’t move here, which means houses stay empty, and wages stay low, and county tax revenues fall, and you have to close the libraries, and lay off cops? Say someone running for office wanted to increase the charge to the City for use of the library? That effects me. I should be able to get all the Manassas City patrons of library to go and vote against this candidate. I mean, this guy or gal could do things that are counter to my interests…irrespective of county/city lines….you are EXCLUDING me from the democratic exercise of my liberty (and personal interests) based simply upon some arbitrary line on a map, my choice to not live in the County notwithstanding.
The fact is, PWC elected officials should be elected by PWC Residents. Republican Candidates should be selected by Republicans. Democrats by Democrats. Independents get their say in the general election, so they aren’t disenfranchised.
@Steve Thomas
I am sorry, but not surprised that you would disagree with me. I think you missed some of my explanation and the fact that I follow through and vote for that party’s nominee. Frankly, at the local level party really shouldn’t matter. Day to day issues are not always party line items we all are living in the same community. However, I understand why they are in place.
Manassas has been dependent on the county with those SHARED services you mention for decades. That’s just the way it is. The City pays for those shared services, and definately should have a say in what happens with those services. It would my hope that those city folks elect officials that will have people in place to “fight” for the citizens of the city to ensure the best possible agreement is in place for it’s residents. I have always, said what happens in the city does have an impact on the county, and vica versa. However, I’ve taken heat from one local official that likes to come on blogs with a moniker for caring about the crime, etc. in the city. My community is situated on the county/city(both) lines. If there aren’t enough police for the crime to stop them in the city, they will be in the county at the blink of an eye. If I didn’t like the agreement has with the city, I wouldn’t live there. I would live in the county where I did have a vote.
@Lafayette
“Doesn’t one have to be a register Republican to participate in a convention? Could I move to the CoM, as known Independent and participate in a convention. I know there was NO problem what so ever with an Indpedent working for a candidate.”
Virginia (sadly) doesn’t have “registration by party”, and has open primaries. The delegate form simply states “I am in accord with the principles of the Republican Party and agree to support the party nominee in the general election”. The delegate signs the pledge. Whether they honor it is a matter for them. I know of whom you speak. I suppose any convention delegate could have challenged this independents eligibility, by virtue of the fact that this person is an elected oficial who runs as an independent, but the determination of eligibility would be made by the assembled convention vote. Without party registration, the only thing the Registrar can report to the MGOP is the applicant is an eligible voter, ie. registered to vote in the CoM. If you were to move to the CoM, your would be eligible to vote, and thereby could participate in selecting the MGOP nominees. If, by virtue of signing the delegate form, you are in accord with the principles of the party, and voted for the nominee, regardless of whether your candidate won, without party registration, we can’t bar you from participating. Now, if you were a declared candidate for the race in question, as an independent, or nominee of another party, we could bar you. In the case you cited, the individual was not on the ballot that cycle.
@Steve Thomas
The problem with your example is that you can’t legally vote out of your jurisdiction but at this point, an independent can vote in your primary. You’ll have to get the law changed. There’s much hoopla about us (independents) voting in party primaries. However, you guys love it when we vote for your candidate in a general election.
Thanks for the information. I just had to ask.
@Lafayette
So, if you participate in a primary, and your preferred candidate wins, you have no problems supporting them in the general. Check. I would hope you would. Now here’s where the party id comes into play: should your preferred candidate lose, shouldn’t you support the winner of the primary in which you voted? If your answer is “yes”, then we have no disagreement. If your answer is “no, I should be free to support whomever you want, by virtue of the fact that I am an independent”, you prove my point. Independents should not be involved in picking a party’s nominee, anymore than I should have a say in who the democrats pick, knowing full well that in the general, I am going to vote for the Republican.
@Steve Thomas
Don’t you know any Republicans who vote for the weakest candidate in the Democratic primary as a tactic to help the Republican Party?( Provided that the primaries aren’t on the same day, of course.)
@Censored bybvbl
My point exactly. It all comes down to the law. Registration by party would clean this up really quick. I have a feeling there’d be a lot more “R”‘s and “D”s “L”s etc. if this were the case. I have no issues with a declared “I” voting for whomever they want in a general, and the parties should be courting this vote. That’s power of influence. But this power of influence shouldn’t extend to picking a nominee. Back to Moon’s original point: What does it mean to be in a Party? Well, if there is no integrity within the system, why have parties at all? Let’s make every election “non-partisan” and have 60 names for every office on the ballot. Yeah…that’ll work. The problem isn’t the two party system or even who is running the party. The problem is, at least in states with open primaries and no party id registration, is too many people want to have their cake and eat (or not eat) it too. I say, with party ID, and closed primaries, the candidates selected, and those eventually elected would better reflect the “principles of the X party”, because they will have been nominated by those who share those principles.
My reply to mom above should answer your question. This is the ONE & ONLY time I will not support the party nominee. I live in a district where only R’s get elected. My reason this time is based on the behavior/tactics of the party’s nominee’s team. The blog set up by some person, lieing to Martha’s face by the nominee and a campaign worker(that once thought she’d take a stab at the job, but decided to back Candland). Like I’ve said before some of my very conservative neighbors had to put up with nasty calls and emails, simply because they supported Martha. One person is a Republican to the core, and will NOT vote for Candland. She will write Martha in is my belief. I’m not willing to throw my vote away on a write-in with no serious write-in campaign mounted.
@Mom
No offense taken. I don’t vote in a primary to pick the other party’s nominee, as Steve stated could happen. If I voted for a person in the primary and they are on the ticket they get my vote in the general election. I’ve voted for loosers in the primary and gone to vote for THAT party’s nominee. This year is the FIRST time ever I will NOT be voting for the party nominee after voting in that party’s primary.
Comment #42 for
@Steve Thomas
@Censored bybvbl
Yes I do, but just because you can do something, doesn’t make it right. I am sure the Democrats (when they have primaries, locally) don’t appeciate “R”‘s and “R”-leaning “I”s monkeying with their nominations process either.
@Steve Thomas
I also forgot the biggie. I don’t think Candland has the kind of quality time needed to devote to being our supervisor. This guy came out of nowhere. Well, maybe not R’s. I think most vieing for a seat would have at the very least addressed the Board of Supervisors during citizens’ time at some point. Seems to me if you want to run, you’ve been driven enough by at least one issue to make you go down to the McCoart building to make your voice/opinion heard.
@Lafayette
You are arguing as an individual, with individual motivations. I am talking about a process. Now, based on your individual situation, I ask you, if we had registration by party, what party do you see yourself registering for? You can pick “I”, but that would mean you couldn’t participate in the primaries. Also, you are free to change your registration any time, but there is a deadline before the primaries, and it opens back up after the general. Which party (if any) based on where you live, the political makeup of the area, etc, would you pick? Now, if you picked, say the GOP, wouldn’t you join the committee and work to ensure its character was representative of your views at least at some level?
@Steve Thomas
If I had to register I would probably go with the GOP. However, it’s the social issues that make me not want to register as GOP. I would want to be in accord with party. Damn, I should have hooked up with the R’s and maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
If I lived in the city NO problem joining the committee, but in the county it’s another animal with regards to the GOP. imo. I think the MGOP operates a little more on the up and up then in the county. The county R’s go after their own. Just like Candland did Martha. And the really low point was saying she was too old. I probably wouldn’t be warmly welcomed by either party.
@Lafayette
Again, you are speaking about an individual candidate, in an individual race. I am talking about integrity of a process. As a believer in the process, I am prepared to accept its outcome. If I wasn’t, why even participate at all? You see, how can one complain of a “Candidate the GOP rams down our throats”, when that candidate wasn’t selected solely by the will of the assembled GOP? The primary was open. Are you arguing that some third party swung the race in Candland’s favor? Who was it? the TEA Party? Did enough Independents turn out for Candland that it gave him an edge?
@Steve Thomas
For every Democrat who votes in a Republican primary with the intention of producing the weakest candidate, there are other independents who vote for the lesser of two evils. The Republicans should be thankful that they’re getting the opinion of a larger community – one which will vote in the general election for a candidate that they can support.
I don’t know many people who are actually members of the Republican Party other than office holders and their families though many claim to be Republicans. Membership may be more of a “clubbish” thing that many people avoid. For example, the CoM has only Republicans ( with the exception of one Independent) on the Council. So obviously most voters vote Republican. How many people voted for R’s in the last election compared to actual members of the City’s Republican Party?
@Steve Thomas
I merely used that as example of the R’s eating their own in the coutny.
I did say I would join the GOP. In the first sentence. I thought that’s something you might actually agree with or approve of. Silly me.
@Lafayette
And if you were in the GOP, you would work hard to make sure that others who share your views were also in the GOP, thereby ensuring that the GOP reflected and respected your values on the multitude of issues. Konwing you, if you got ticked off enough, you’d run for chairman. The GOP is not conservative, or moderate, or liberal. It is the members of the party that determine its character. Same for the Democrats. If you say, as the Grand Dame says “both parties chased me out”, it is because you let them. You know me. I am a conservative. I would like to see the GOP represent conservative principles. But I also acknowledge that there will always be people within the party more moderate than me, and a few more conservative. If all we had are conservatives, we’d be conservative, but wouldn’t win many elections. If all we had were moderates, we’d be moderate, but wouldn’t win many elections either. Reagan won with a big tent. People looked at the other candidates and said his principles are more inline with mine. That’s how he won 49 out of 50 states in 1984.