What's to stop...

I know I'm a bit late in asking this question, but I've been wondering what's to stop Bush-supporters from voting in the democratic primaries for the candidate they feel will be weakest against Bush? (And replace a couple words to correspond with other elections.)

I’ve heard of some states requiring voters in the primaries to be registered democrats. But isn’t it quite easy to change one’s party affiliation? Wouldn’t it make more sense to require people who voted in the primaries to vote for that party in the election, or not vote at all? Would this be this too difficult to handle?

Originally posted by WillJ
I know I'm a bit late in asking this question, but I've been wondering what's to stop Bush-supporters from voting in the democratic primaries for the candidate they feel will be weakest against Bush?

Click to expand...

In lots of cases....nothing. It hasn't traditionally been a big conern. I mean, you'd need a lot of votes to really make much of a difference in most cases.

Many states hold Senatorial and Congressional primaries on the same day as Presidential primaries. The Republican race for President may be uncontested, but there may be a hot local race that they'd want to be a part of.

In states that hold separate local and Presidential primaries, I don't know. It may be a sense of "I won't care who the other party picks, our guy is better anyway", it may be the embarassment of registering as a member of the other party, it may be a matter of principle, or a combination of all these and more.

Originally posted by WillJ
I know I'm a bit late in asking this question, but I've been wondering what's to stop Bush-supporters from voting in the democratic primaries for the candidate they feel will be weakest against Bush? (And replace a couple words to correspond with other elections.)

I’ve heard of some states requiring voters in the primaries to be registered democrats. But isn’t it quite easy to change one’s party affiliation? Wouldn’t it make more sense to require people who voted in the primaries to vote for that party in the election, or not vote at all? Would this be this too difficult to handle?

Click to expand...

yes one could do that, but since we can only get 50% tops to vote in what many would call the most important vote you'll make in 4 years. Now do you really think people are going to just go around and screw over the entire system when only 50% are willing to get up and go to the voting booths I don't think that many will do the extra work of changing parties just to give their true party a possible edge. and no they shouldn't be restricted from voting either party on november. in 10 months people can change their minds so they shouldn't be locked in to either supporting a guy they dislike or just not showing up and giving the guy he dislikes a better chance because he can't vote against him. Besides it screws over the whole secret ballot thing anyway.

Edit: Misread, nevermind...

Originally posted by Duke Togo
If you are a registered Republican, you cannot vote in a Democratic Primary (and vice versa). Come on, you guys should know stuff like this.

Click to expand...

First of all, you CAN vote in some democratic primaries as a registered republican. Second of all, if I'm not mistaken it's fairly easy to switch from a registered republican to a registered democrat (and vice versa). Third of all, not all anti-democrats are republicans. (But I suppose most are, so you can ignore that point.) Edit: Nevermind, missed your edit.

Originally posted by Little Raven
In lots of cases....nothing. It hasn't traditionally been a big conern. I mean, you'd need a lot of votes to really make much of a difference in most cases.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but why don't more people do this? Could humans actually be honest? Edit: Oh, and how do we even know it's not a big problem? It's not like you can easily tell which primary votes are honest.

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
Many states hold Senatorial and Congressional primaries on the same day as Presidential primaries. The Republican race for President may be uncontested, but there may be a hot local race that they'd want to be a part of.

Click to expand...

Hmm, good point. But couldn't they switch sides on the same day? (Sounds kinda silly of course, but still seems possible to me.) Or did I miss your point?

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
In states that hold separate local and Presidential primaries, I don't know. It may be a sense of "I won't care who the other party picks, our guy is better anyway", it may be the embarassment of registering as a member of the other party, it may be a matter of principle, or a combination of all these and more.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt people would have the first mindset, the second one might be true, but it's kinda silly, and I also doubt the third. I suppose the real answer might be...

Originally posted by Shadylookin
yes one could do that, but since we can only get 50% tops to vote in what many would call the most important vote you'll make in 4 years. Now do you really think people are going to just go around and screw over the entire system when only 50% are willing to get up and go to the voting booths I don't think that many will do the extra work of changing parties just to give their true party a possible edge.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Most people are probably too apathetic (with a healthy dose of personal ethics) to sabotage primaries of the opposite party. But I imagine some do.

Originally posted by Shadylookin
in 10 months people can change their minds so they shouldn't be locked in to either supporting a guy they dislike or just not showing up and giving the guy he dislikes a better chance because he can't vote against him. Besides it screws over the whole secret ballot thing anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my solution isn't the best in the world. In fact, it sucks. Still, though, the original problem just seems too big to ignore...

Given the margins that Kerry won by in most states, it wouldn't have been worth it. Except perhaps in New Hampshire [early momentum] and Oklahoma [close one there].

I think I should be able to vote in the Republican primaries, even as a registered Democrat! I'm not going to "cheat", I want the option of selecting the lesser evil in both categories, and I'm sure many independents feel the same way. Just because I support Al Gore doesn't mean I don't have a preference between McCain and Bush, for example! IMHO since a nominee is running for an office that represents the ENTIRE country, I should have a say even if I don't belong to his party. Plus it's an excellent primary tool. If a candidate is inspiring large opposition-party turnouts, he may not be the right guy for the job even if he's winning by large margins within his own party.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Given the margins that Kerry won by in most states, it wouldn't have been worth it.

Click to expand...

How do you know that wasn't because we elephants were tampering? Other than Dean, Kerry was our next choice. Edwards and Clark scared us.

Edwards and Clark had no chance without large grassroots movements. The DNC hated Dean's guts for not following the party line, so they just looked for the first viable alternative. Kerry's campaign grew overnight - he won by default because he had the most money and combatted Dean the hardest.

i believe you have to register 30 days in advance(though i'm not sure and probably wrong since i've never voted) so that leaves out changing parites in 12 hours, and if that doesn't stop them then the fact that you only get 1 ballot so you can't vote for pres then switch in a few hours and then go vote for who you want in the state. I think we should stop dead people from voting more than the living few trying to abuse the system (truth is stranger than fiction)

That's what Karl, I mean Mr. Rove wants you to think.

Nothing stops you from registering for the other party just to screw them. It happens all the time. But the dissenting votes are not enough to make a big difference. Most people just don't go through the hassle of switching party registration for every election.

And different states have different deadlines for how soon before an election/primary you can register. Even so, you only get one ballot when you actually vote in a primary so if you want to vote for democratic presidential nominees you can't also vote for republican senators.

Since when did US elections favour the stronger candidate?