Let's say Party A's candidate is Obama. Obviously Ron Paul has a better chance than Hitler. So, if Party A voted for Ron Paul to make absolutely sure Hitler DIDN'T win, that would be ethically sound.
Obviously voting for Hitler is morally wrong, but generically, I'd be mad at Party A if they voted for a less viable candidate to screw over my preferred candidate, but in an open primary its not "Wrong" since its allowed (Its more grey with a touch of black as opposed to pure black.) If It was a closed primary and they switched just to screw us over, that's cheating.
Well, I still think sabotaging party elections for the sake of picking an easily beatable candidate is enough to make it wrong. Do you really expect people to vote for the other party for who they agree with the most, or for the person who they can beat more easily? Two words: "Operation Chaos".
I'm not sure this is much of an issue. Ultimately political parties need to pre-select candidates who are electable. Preselections solely among political party members aren't really influenced by who is wealthier.
I see no problem if one votes for the candidate you would prefer see win overall or would least mind as a president over your own party's candidate, not merely the one you think the opposition can most easily defeat.
In other words, since there is no contest for the Dems this year, I see absolutely no ethical issues in Dems voting for Paul because they like his stance on US foreign policy or Romney because they see him as less odious than Santorum or Gingrich, even if they then vote Obama in the general election. No different than a Republican voting in their primary, then going Dem in November.
Tactical voting for a candidate one does not support in any way, shape, or form strikes me as shady, calling for mass tactical voting even more so. I wouldn't go so far as to call it unethical, though.
It would appear to be good if the two parties could vote together to pick who they thought was the best, but in reality, both sides would be working to simply undermine the others. Rush Limbaugh tried to do it to the Democrats, and Democrats will probably try it with the Republicans.
Um, firstly that doesn't seem to happen (the super-rich seem to be doing a pretty good job of dominating your candidate selection process, whilst in ours they don't). Secondly, though, so what? If you're not a committed member of a political party what business is it of yours how they select their candidates?
Membership isn't exactly super expensive, either. Labor and the Greens charge on an income-scale, ranging from below $20 for students and others with low income to upwards of $100 a year for those who can afford to pay. Even the Liberals (conservative right wingers) only charge $90/yr for a basic membership and $30 for students and pensioners. Parties aren't exactly exclusive clubs.
Clearly this is a decisive issue, by the votes so far. I voted in favor of being able to vote in other primaries. My point of view is that if you're really okay with all of your party' candidates, but do have a clear preference amongst the other party's candidates, you should be able to vote in that primary. And the other party doesn't really suffer; if they get a candidate that voters of the other party like more, they'll get more votes from other parties in the final election. The Democratic Party thought otherwise when they refused to count Wisconsin's open primary in 1984, and it turned out that Mondale, who did better in the closed caususes in Wisconsin, didn't do very well in the national election. They went back to allowing the open primaries the next election.
Now, intentionally voting for a candidate that you don't like because you think no one will ever elect them - sabotage as mangxema says - is bad and stupid. How would you feel if you voted for someone like Adolf Hilter thinking, "there's no way he's ever going to be elected" and then he actually wound up being head honcho? Hyperbole, yes. But it serves the point of why I think that voting tactic is stupid.
And I see I wasn't the first person to prove Godwin's Law in this thread. Well done, GhostWriter16.
In the present case, I plan to vote in the Republican primary even though I don't consider myself a Republican. In part because it's the only primary, in part because there certainly are candidates I prefer to others amongst the Republicans, and in part because I'm still undecided on who I'll vote for in November. As in, it's not impossible that I'd vote for a Republican candidate then. But if certain Republicans did win the primary, then it would be impossible.
I see no problem if one votes for the candidate you would prefer see win overall or would least mind as a president over your own party's candidate, not merely the one you think the opposition can most easily defeat.
In other words, since there is no contest for the Dems this year, I see absolutely no ethical issues in Dems voting for Paul because they like his stance on US foreign policy or Romney because they see him as less odious than Santorum or Gingrich, even if they then vote Obama in the general election. No different than a Republican voting in their primary, then going Dem in November.
Tactical voting for a candidate one does not support in any way, shape, or form strikes me as shady, calling for mass tactical voting even more so. I wouldn't go so far as to call it unethical, though.
I don't have a problem with crossing over to vote for someone you consider acceptable or the lesser of two evils. But sabotage (like Hush Bimbo and Kos) is both unethical and stupid. Imagine voting for Sanatorium in order to sabotage the GOP nomination process, and then some unforeseen event swings the election to him in the fall.
Um, firstly that doesn't seem to happen (the super-rich seem to be doing a pretty good job of dominating your candidate selection process, whilst in ours they don't). Secondly, though, so what? If you're not a committed member of a political party what business is it of yours how they select their candidates?
In that case, why let people vote at all. Let's just make this a money election: Whoever gets the most money becomes President, and we skip all this democracy garbage. Oligarchy FTW!!!!
Membership isn't exactly super expensive, either. Labor and the Greens charge on an income-scale, ranging from below $20 for students and others with low income to upwards of $100 a year for those who can afford to pay. Even the Liberals (conservative right wingers) only charge $90/yr for a basic membership and $30 for students and pensioners. Parties aren't exactly exclusive clubs.
But as an unemployed person scraping by on little money, would you want to spend your money on food or a political party? I expect many people would choose food.
No, the correct answer there should be a more generous unemployment benefit (and minimum wage). In a developed economy, there should be nobody with literally no discretionary income (obviously there's homelessness but that's an entirely different issue).
20 dollars per year is about 50 cents a week, anyone with an interest in politics should be able to afford that and I highly doubt the quite low fee is a barrier to membership in this country (disillusionment and irrelevance and byzantine internal structures, on the other hand...).
And the first part of what you just posted is very very silly.
Really the point here is only actual members of a political party should determine candidate selection, not just any old person who wanders in off the street. I said fee-paying because well, that's pretty much how you define an actual member isn't it?
Translated into American, I guess what I mean is that even if primaries and caucuses are kind of strange, open ones are very dumb.
In California we're just going to have one primary for all parties and then the two candidates who get the most votes go head to head in the general election even if they're from the same party. In some areas we could even see third party candidates making it on to the ballot but one or both of the big party candidates failing to qualify.
In California we're just going to have one primary for all parties and then the two candidates who get the most votes go head to head in the general election even if they're from the same party. In some areas we could even see third party candidates making it on to the ballot but one or both of the big party candidates failing to qualify.
I think I knew that. It might not have fully registered with me because it's weird.. What business is it of the state to say what can and what can't happen when a party selects its new leader? (or representative or candidate or whatever)
Santorum defends robo-call use in Michigan primary that encourages Dems to vote against Romney
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, February 28, 12:07 PM
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum defended his campaigns use of automated telephone calls to encourage Michigan Democrats to vote against Mitt Romney on Tuesday and suggested his rival did the same thing by courting independents in an earlier contest.
Were going to get voters that we need to be able to win this election. And were going to do that here in Michigan today, Santorum said outside a Grand Rapids-area restaurant, hours after the polls opened in Michigans contested GOP
We have a corrupt Federal government that, running up against opposition to their practice of taxing to enable the giving out of free ponies in exchange for votes, decided to just forgo the taxing and just borrow.
Now selfsame corrupt Federal goverment having run into opposition to aforementioned practice have continued apace with the plan to generate inflation as a method of repressive taxation as necessary to continue the Ponzi scheme otherwise known as the US treasury and Federal Reserve.
Thus for the preservation of personal political power said goverment and attached parasitical elites have therefore agreed that future generations must needs be born into debt slavery.
And to that end have proffered in addition to the current occupant of the Oval Office one and only one alternative, the elite venture capitalist Keneysian Romney...
Would it therefore be ethical to cross vote in primaries as a method to vanquish this evil power structure and save America?
Rick Santorum defended his campaigns use of automated telephone calls to encourage Michigan Democrats to vote against Mitt Romney on Tuesday and suggested his rival did the same thing by courting independents in an earlier contest.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
