[MindFad]

Floridian voting imminent.

[Spheric Harlot]

I thought those things get discarded where you live?

[MindFad]

No, no, that comes after they've been discovered, uncounted, in warehouse storage boxes, silly. Duh. Foreigners trying to tell me how the system works, and you can barely type in American. Jesus.

But seriously, the ballot is four pages long (senate seat, mayoral seat, a ton of stuff). I'll go over it tonight and have her mailed on Monday. I'll scan it just to be safe. You never know�I could be the one nerd that scanned my ballot and could decide the elction. Hurrah for the election process.

[bleuvixen]

Got mine a few days ago as well.

Mike will be going to early voting next week so we are all done.

[icruise]

Why are you voting absentee?

[itai195]

My fiance got hers several days ago too. Of course, I'm not sure she's had time to read through the 165 page Voter Information Guide or the 20 page Supplemental to the Voter Information Guide yet... California, gah...

[jbartone]

Originally posted by MindFad:
No, no, that comes after they've been discovered, uncounted, in warehouse storage boxes, silly. Duh. Foreigners trying to tell me how the system works, and you can barely type in American. Jesus.

But seriously, the ballot is four pages long (senate seat, mayoral seat, a ton of stuff). I'll go over it tonight and have her mailed on Monday. I'll scan it just to be safe. You never know�I could be the one nerd that scanned my ballot and could decide the elction. Hurrah for the election process.

Hah. Sounds like here in Australia.
The Senate voting paper alone is around 5 landscape pages put together.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Why are you voting absentee?

On the chance that we have another 2000 fiasco. And, of course, I don't exactly hold much faith in Diebold voting machines. And it's easier this way�I don't have to go to the polls.

[idjeff]

You should have entitled the thread...

"OMFG...THE 2004 ABSENTEE BALLOTS HAVE ARRIVED...STANDBY FOR BENCHMARKS!!!"

I mean, since you're a mac guy

[MindFad]

Pffft, benchmarks. At least my ballot didn't come with a GeForce 5200 FX Ultra with 64MB. I would've bitched up a storm then.

[MindFad]

After some precise black ball point pen-bubbling using my skills as an artist, I have officially cast my personal vote. The rest is in the hands of my elections official and mailman.

The deed is done. Let's hear it for the election process! No Sharpie on my cuticles, bitches!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MindFad:

Who are all those other people and why aren't they mentioned in any news coverage? What sort of democracy is that?

[fireside]

Originally posted by MindFad:
After some precise black ball point pen-bubbling using my skills as an artist, I have officially cast my personal vote. The rest is in the hands of my elections official and mailman.

The deed is done. Let's hear it for the election process! No Sharpie on my cuticles, bitches!

nice bubbling skillz there 'fadster.

[vmpaul]

My Mom got her ballot this week.

I don't if you people have statewide propositions or not but we have 16 this year. 16!! Phew. 2 of them are on Indian gambling revenues. That is a lot of paperwork and legalese to have to go through. It is a JOB trying to separate the b.s. from the truth in these ballot measures.

Democracy can be a bitch sometimes.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Who are all those other people and why aren't they mentioned in any news coverage? What sort of democracy is that?

Why waste the time mentioning candidates that nobody's ever heard of?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Why waste the time mentioning candidates that nobody's ever heard of?

I'm not sure if that was intended to be funny, but you just answered your own question.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by fireside:
nice bubbling skillz there 'fadster.

Yeah, I got a little bit out of the bubble there, but overall I think I did well. Hopefully they don't throw it out.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Who are all those other people and why aren't they mentioned in any news coverage? What sort of democracy is that?

Pfpffpfpfpf, democracy. You saw how much that meant back in 2000.

But anyway, those other folks' parties are:

Repugnantcans (or Utter Failure Ticket '04�)
Democrats
Constitution Party (of Florida, I believe)
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Socialist Workers Party
Socialist Party of Florida
Reform Party

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Nice to see that after 4 years of very methodical coaching (repeated slowly, over and over) from the rest of the nation, Democrat Floridians may have finally mastered the concept of: �Okay, indicate-the-circle-next-to-the-guy-you-actually-want-to-vote-for.�

While it may have seemed a fairly simple task for most other people, we know that the every-four-years task of punching a hole correctly, using actual hand/eye/brain coordination was a grueling proposition for some Floridians.

Still, it�s good that you�re thinking ahead. Now when you have those inevitable post-election jitters wondering �Oh no! Did I vote for Michael A Peroutka by mistake?� rather than holding up the entire nation with it, you can log on here and double-check your work just to be sure.

Well done!

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
My Mom got her ballot this week.

I don't if you people have statewide propositions or not but we have 16 this year. 16!! Phew. 2 of them are on Indian gambling revenues. That is a lot of paperwork and legalese to have to go through. It is a JOB trying to separate the b.s. from the truth in these ballot measures.

Democracy can be a bitch sometimes.

I generally vote no against almost any ballot proposition, personally. There is usually more BS than truth to them. I may vote yes on 63 this year, and I haven't made up my mind on the stem cell research one.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'm not sure if that was intended to be funny, but you just answered your own question.

If I am a voter who is informed then I would know who those people are. But why waste a vote on a person/persons who has less chance of winning than I have winning the week's lottery?

Tell me, do the television stations in Germany talk about our other candidates? Do they even talk about every candidate for state office in Germany?

[mitchell_pgh]

I think it's silly to vote before elections day unless it is your only option.

You NEVER know what's going to happen days before the election.

It's like going through 90% of a trial as a juror and saying "Ummm, can I just vote now and leave?"

[icruise]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
If I am a voter who is informed then I would know who those people are. But why waste a vote on a person/persons who has less chance of winning than I have winning the week's lottery?

I'm not necessarily saying that we should open the presidential debates to everyone running for president -- if these people had more support (like Perot did) then I'm sure they would have been given more coverage. But surely you realize that your original statement was very circular. The main reason that nobody knows about these candidates is that the media doesn't cover them. But you're saying that the media shouldn't cover them because they are unknown?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by itai195:
I generally vote no against almost any ballot proposition, personally. There is usually more BS than truth to them. I may vote yes on 63 this year, and I haven't made up my mind on the stem cell research one.

I can appreciate that. Doesn't it seem like we have more than usual this year?

I'm a strong advocate for stem cell research so I'm likely to vote yes on that, although I've heard some criticism on how that proposition could be executed. I need to do more research. Anyway, it'll be a hedge in case Bush wins again. SC's will be stalled another 4 years if he's re-elected.

It's the Indian Gaming issues that got me confused. I have no idea which is what. Do other states have this problem? I have 2 initial reactions to these:
1) Haven't we screwed the Indians enough? Now we have to increase their taxes? As long as they're contributing to the infrastructure around the reservations that lead to the casinos, then leave'em alone.

2) It seems like just another Gov. money grab. In the vein of "We can't curtail our spending or balance our own books, so let's see who we can roll for more money." They've raided all the pensions and other places to boost the General Fund, Indian reservations are next. I hate that.

But that's just my initial reaction. I've yet to examine the pro & con literature.

(sorry to non-Californians for the irrelevancy)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
If I am a voter who is informed then I would know who those people are. But why waste a vote on a person/persons who has less chance of winning than I have winning the week's lottery?

Because "running with the winner" is not democracy. A prime requirement for free choice is knowing you have it in the first place. And yes, I do believe that one of the responsibilities media face is to educate the public about its government, alternatives, and its choices.

That's part of what "democracy" means to me and my country, as taught to us by the USA (among others) after WWII.

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Tell me, do the television stations in Germany talk about our other candidates? Do they even talk about every candidate for state office in Germany?

As a matter of fact, they are REQUIRED BY LAW to give equal-priority time to political advertisements from all parties that request it.

It is MY responsibility, as a citizen, to inform myself, but the media hindering or downright obstructing this by refusing to report on anybody but the likely winners makes the democratic process as worthless and propaganda-driven as "elections" in Cuba, North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Because "running with the winner" is not democracy. A prime requirement for free choice is knowing you have it in the first place. And yes, I do believe that one of the responsibilities media face is to educate the public about its government, alternatives, and its choices.

That's part of what "democracy" means to me and my country, as taught to us by the USA (among others) after WWII.
As a matter of fact, they are REQUIRED BY LAW to give equal-priority time to political advertisements from all parties that request it.

It is MY responsibility, as a citizen, to inform myself, but the media hindering or downright obstructing this by refusing to report on anybody but the likely winners makes the democratic process as worthless and propaganda-driven as "elections" in Cuba, North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq.

-s*

Well, personally, I don't think that party lists are very democratic, and as I understand it, that's how you do it in Germany. I think it is more important to know for certain the individuals you are voting for to fill a particular office. I don't like the idea of voting for parties and then having those parties select the person who will fill the office.

Even within parties politicians are not interchangable parts. Their opinions and skills vary. Voters should be allowed to pick and choose among them without the interferance of national parties.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, personally, I don't think that party lists are very democratic, and as I understand it, that's how you do it in Germany. I think it is more important to know for certain the individuals you are voting for to fill a particular office. I don't like the idea of voting for parties and then having those parties select the person who will fill the office.

Even within parties politicians are not interchangable parts. Their opinions and skills vary. Voters should be allowed to pick and choose among them without the interferance of national parties.

The order in which candidates are placed on these lists is public and can be reckoned with when placing your vote. They are not selected by the parties after the election.

The way to influence the candidates' list placement is to join the party and make yourself heard. Parties use strategic placement of candidates to garner votes, and vice versa.

If you want to vote for non-party-bound candidates, you will have to vote for a non-party candidate. This has happened regionally, with those (quite successful) candidates then going on to form a political party and trying their luck across more federal states (and then failing miserably after their incompetence became apparent).


-s*

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Because "running with the winner" is not democracy. A prime requirement for free choice is knowing you have it in the first place. And yes, I do believe that one of the responsibilities media face is to educate the public about its government, alternatives, and its choices.

That's part of what "democracy" means to me and my country, as taught to us by the USA (among others) after WWII.
As a matter of fact, they are REQUIRED BY LAW to give equal-priority time to political advertisements from all parties that request it.

It is MY responsibility, as a citizen, to inform myself, but the media hindering or downright obstructing this by refusing to report on anybody but the likely winners makes the democratic process as worthless and propaganda-driven as "elections" in Cuba, North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq.

-s*

Comparisons to NK, Saddam Hussein's government, or Cuba, are hyperbole, but add to the offense you feel the prohibitive ballot access laws, and you've got a clear picture of the problem. http://www.ballot-access.org/

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Comparisons to NK, Saddam Hussein's government, or Cuba, are hyperbole, but add to the offense you feel the prohibitive ballot access laws, and you've got a clear picture of the problem. http://www.ballot-access.org/

Woah.

(Please excuse the hyperbole. It seemed appropriate for dealing with Mattress.)

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The order in which candidates are placed on these lists is public and can be reckoned with when placing your vote. They are not selected by the parties after the election.

The way to influence the candidates' list placement is to join the party and make yourself heard. Parties use strategic placement of candidates to garner votes, and vice versa.

If you want to vote for non-party-bound candidates, you will have to vote for a non-party candidate. This has happened regionally, with those (quite successful) candidates then going on to form a political party and trying their luck across more federal states (and then failing miserably after their incompetence became apparent).


-s*

So in other words, on order to have a good chance of being elected, you have to have the backing of a party, which is controlled by those interested (or with enough free time) to join and be involved. Those party insiders have a lot of power. Non-party candidates are at a severe disadvantage.

Compare that with the US, where candidates run more or less independent of the parties. There is no party list a candidate can appear on. But if he wants to appear on a ballot with a party endorsement, he has to get primary voters to nominate him for that party. Those primary voters do not have to be deeply involved with the party. Any citizen can register and vote. Moreover, whoever they vote for is the nominee even if the party insiders wouldn't have nominated that person. The idea is that the candidate is selected by the people to run, not by party insiders, but the upshot is that American political parties are very weak umbrella organizations.

On the other hand, the candidate has to raise a lot of money independently to either win a primary, and/or run in the general election. That creates its own set of insiders who control the access to funds that make running for office practical.

Neither system is perfect, and neither one is without its gatekeepers. But I still don't like the idea of party lists. If I live in locality X, I want to know when I cast my vote which specific individual will represent locality X if elected. Individuals vary widely even if they are from the same party. I don't want to be just influencing placement on some list.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
A prime requirement for free choice is knowing you have it in the first place.

Are there or are there not opportunities for the voter to LOOK at the BALLOT and think: "Gosh, wow, there are other choices..."

It is up to the voter to educate him or herself to the choices. It isn't the government's or any party's responsibility to do this.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Icruise:
The main reason that nobody knows about these candidates is that the media doesn't cover them. But you're saying that the media shouldn't cover them because they are unknown?

Anyone who gets their education from the media probably shouldn't vote in the first place.

There are ample ways to find out more about other candidates, however, if the general electorate is ignorant to this then it's hardly my problem or the media's.

[icruise]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Anyone who gets their education from the media probably shouldn't vote in the first place.

There are ample ways to find out more about other candidates, however, if the general electorate is ignorant to this then it's hardly my problem or the media's.

It may not be your fault, but it's everyone's problem.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So in other words, on order to have a good chance of being elected, you have to have the backing of a party, which is controlled by those interested (or with enough free time) to join and be involved. Those party insiders have a lot of power. Non-party candidates are at a severe disadvantage.

Compare that with the US, where candidates run more or less independent of the parties. There is no party list a candidate can appear on. But if he wants to appear on a ballot with a party endorsement, he has to get primary voters to nominate him for that party.

*ahem*

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
If you want to vote for non-party-bound candidates, you will have to vote for a non-party candidate. This has happened regionally, with those (quite successful) candidates then going on to form a political party and trying their luck across more federal states (and then failing miserably after their incompetence became apparent).

But thanks for your insight into your system.

It really does seem to be the alternative between political mafia or money mafia, except for one thing: state-funded campaign financing. To guarantee fair chances, any party that gets above a certain percentage of the vote (currently 0.5% for federal elections and 1.0% for state polls) is eligible for reimbursement from a total theoretical maximum of 133 million �uro per year for all parties. Additionally, all parties are legally guaranteed airtime on TV and radio. This means that the financial means necessary to start as an independent candidate, or even found your own party, are fairly easily accessible.

The most recent example of this here in Germany has been Ronald Schill, who was a right-wing conservative hypocrite judge who gained a name for totally out-of-bounds and merciless judgements and then rode into the Hamburg Senate on the Law-and-Order� ticket to become Senator of Inner Affairs (police & security). He was planning on franchising his party into all of Northern Germany, before he was *finally* kicked out for blackmailing the mayor (his boss) by threatening to out him. (Not that that would have been news to anyone.)

-s*

[MindFad]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Nice to see that after 4 years of very methodical coaching (repeated slowly, over and over) from the rest of the nation, Democrat Floridians may have finally mastered the concept of: �Okay, indicate-the-circle-next-to-the-guy-you-actually-want-to-vote-for.�

While it may have seemed a fairly simple task for most other people, we know that the every-four-years task of punching a hole correctly, using actual hand/eye/brain coordination was a grueling proposition for some Floridians.

Hmm. Were you around in 2000?

I'm not a Democrat, by the way. But it is the obvious choice this year, without question. Failure administration on domestic and foreign policy, no plan for the future aside from what was proposed four years prior; plans for more social division and bigotry; **** environmental, tax, and jobs record? Yeah, I'll take the Democrat with sound a solid plans to make the country better. It's time to trickle up once again.

It's amazing seeing the middle-income struggling white family that is my neighbor put out the Bush-Cheney sign today. And the father is a teacher. I don't get it.

Still, it�s good that you�re thinking ahead. Now when you have those inevitable post-election jitters wondering �Oh no! Did I vote for Michael A Peroutka by mistake?� rather than holding up the entire nation with it, you can log on here and double-check your work just to be sure.

Well done!

My vote will live in MacNN history. I mean:

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Icruise:
It may not be your fault, but it's everyone's problem.

So why don't you support one of the "unknowns" then? Odd.

[icruise]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
So why don't you support one of the "unknowns" then? Odd.

I am a pragmatist. I don't think Kerry walks on water and I don't agree with 100% of his opinions, but he is MUCH better than Bush and much closer to what I believe in. If we had a true democracy where the "unknowns" actually had a chance of winning, I probably would be supporting one of them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Hmm. Were you around in 2000?

Yeah. And punching all the way through a paper ballot (next to the actual choices I wanted) and removing a few chads was a snap. Believe it or not! No, really!

I'm not a Democrat, by the way.

Ahh, that could explain it.
Anyway relax, just joking with you. I don't really care who you voted for, and certainly not why, just glad to see that at least one Floridian wasn't bamboozled by a simple ballot this time around.

[MindFad]

I know you're only foolin'. At least you went one post without using the word "lefty" or "leftist."

But seriously, joking aside, poking through ballots was not what made up the disaster of 2000.

I'm really hoping we don't get another Supreme Court President-Appointee. Seems there are enough problems with electronic voting machines where that might not be needed, though. People could easily fix many of these machines to swing the election either way, and that's a big problem. I have a feeling this election is going to be another mess.

[tie]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I'm a strong advocate for stem cell research so I'm likely to vote yes on that, although I've heard some criticism on how that proposition could be executed. I need to do more research. Anyway, it'll be a hedge in case Bush wins again. SC's will be stalled another 4 years if he's re-elected.

It's the Indian Gaming issues that got me confused. I have no idea which is what. Do other states have this problem? I have 2 initial reactions to these:
1) Haven't we screwed the Indians enough? Now we have to increase their taxes? As long as they're contributing to the infrastructure around the reservations that lead to the casinos, then leave'em alone.

2) It seems like just another Gov. money grab. In the vein of "We can't curtail our spending or balance our own books, so let's see who we can roll for more money." They've raided all the pensions and other places to boost the General Fund, Indian reservations are next. I hate that.

Here are my impressions on these issues. Stem cell research is tempting, but I will probably vote no. I feel strongly that it is the responsibility of the federal government to fund medical research, and it shouldn't be left up to the states. Besides, we can't afford it. (Plus, there do seem to be some oddities in how it is executed in terms of oversight.)

Vote no on both gaming issues (68 and 70?). One of the two (the "fair share" one) is supported by Indian tribes that don't want to have to negotiate with Sacramento (other gaming Indian tribes who have already worked out deals oppose it). Basically this gives them a much better deal than they would otherwise get; it is a handout which they hope to sneak by using deceptive advertising.

(Nobody is messing with the Indians, and we anyway have no authority to do so. I think your impression comes from there being one group of tribes supporting it [but which is financing ads saying things like "make the Indians pay their fair share" as if the support came from some other group], and another group of tribes opposing it.)

The other is supported I believe by non-Indian gaming interests (card clubs and racetracks). These groups want to be able to have slot machines. I am sympathetic to this issue, because as long as California allows gambling then I don't see why California should grant Indian tribes a monopoly on it. But on the other hand I don't think California should allow gambling. This initiative is very unlikely to pass, since the Indian tribes have vowed to spend whatever it takes to defeat it, and protect their monopoly.

[itai195]

I think we're pretty much in the same boat on both issues, tie. In better economic times I'd strongly lean toward a yes vote on stem cell research, but I'm leery of another $3 billion in debt. The problems with the indian gaming props are representative of the reason I generally lean no on propositions -- the bs is piled on too thick. The proposition process is way too easy to manipulate, anyone with enough funds can easily pull a fast one on Californians.

Of course, these are only 3 of the 15 or 16 we've got to decide on. There's prop 63, mental health, which I'd like to vote yes on in theory, but I don't like how nonchalant its supporters are about giving the rich a 1% tax hike. I haven't even looked at most of the others yet. On 72 I will almost definitely vote no (I guess in CA I come off as something of a conservative...). I find the presence of both 60 and 62 on the ballot kind of disturbing as well. Frankly, a lot of these issues should be handled by the state government and not by voters.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
*ahem* But thanks for your insight into your system.

I think you are missing part of the point. It isn't just that non-party candidates are at a disadvantage. How do the voters decide which of the candidates affiliated with a party end up representing them?

In the US we have primary elections. Different candidates who want to represent a party in the general election run for a pre-election election. Then the public -- meaning here any 18 year old who wants to vote -- can vote for whichever one they want. The winner goes on to the general election.

That way the public has a direct voice in how the parties develop through what candidates they run. The consequence is that the party's candidates end up reflecting the public rather than the political views of activists. Activists are almost always more extreme in their views than non-activists.

A good illustration of this was this year's Democratic primary for president. I think it is fair to say that the activist's favorite candidate was Howard Dean. Remember how he was considered the front runner before the primary votes were cast? That was the media responding to activist enthusiasm. But once the public started voting in the primaries it became obvious that they wanted a more moderate candidate. That is why Kerry became the nominee even though party activists would have preferred someone else.

The same moderating effect has happened in the Republican Party. But for the moderating effect of primaries, we probably would have seen both Jerry Fallwell or Pat Buchanan nominated. Both were popular among Republican activists, but scary to most Republican voters (including me).

When I look at European political parties and compare them to the US, I notice that the European parties are much more extreme than the US counterparts. I think part of the reason may be that European parties are controlled by party activists, whereas US parties are to a large part shaped by the non-activist public through primaries.

[sideus]

Originally posted by MindFad:
After some precise black ball point pen-bubbling using my skills as an artist, I have officially cast my personal vote. The rest is in the hands of my elections official and mailman.

The deed is done. Let's hear it for the election process! No Sharpie on my cuticles, bitches!

Fixed�.

[icruise]

Originally posted by sideus:
Fixed�.

That's what I'm afraid of...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you are missing part of the point. It isn't just that non-party candidates are at a disadvantage.

MY point was that they AREN'T.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How do the voters decide which of the candidates affiliated with a party end up representing them?

Are you talking about *single* candidates, such as for chancellor, or about party lists?

In a federal election, we have TWO votes: one for the chancellor, and one for the party distribution in parliament (Bundestag). (The second house and legislative vetoing power, the Bundesrat, is populated proportionally according to power distribution within the federal states' governments.) I cannot directly influence which candidate a party is going to put forth as potential chancellor, but AFAIK, anybody can run as an independent and is eligible for campaign reimbursement.

As for Bundestag-vote: I can vote for independent candidates, or for my own district party candidates. The placement on the candidate lists is clear and known, and depending on the percentage of the vote, candidates get into the Bundestag in order of listing. Additionally, if a party is very strong regionally (above 20% in a district, IIRC), that party's district candidate automatically gets a seat in the Bundestag via regional representation exception (to guarantee representation of regional minority interests).

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In the US we have primary elections. Different candidates who want to represent a party in the general election run for a pre-election election. Then the public -- meaning here any 18 year old who wants to vote -- can vote for whichever one they want. The winner goes on to the general election.

So, theoretically, a Republican voter (or a bunch of them) can go to the Democrat primaries and vote for the candidate he deems least likely to win?

That explains a lot, and not in a good way.

-s*

[fireside]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
So, theoretically, a Republican voter (or a bunch of them) can go to the Democrat primaries and vote for the candidate he deems least likely to win?

That explains a lot, and not in a good way.

-s*

i'm not totally sure about this, but i think you have to be a "registered" democrat to vote in the primaries (atleast, thats what i'm assuming, since when the mother had to get her new drivers license, they made her pick which party she was so she could vote for only for it (or something like that)).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
So, theoretically, a Republican voter (or a bunch of them) can go to the Democrat primaries and vote for the candidate he deems least likely to win?

That explains a lot, and not in a good way.

-s*

You are describing an open primary. An open primary allows anyone to vote in a party primary. I happen to live in one of those (Virginia). In Virginia, we don't have party registration. This means it is possible for people to game the system by "crossing over" and voting in a primary for the candidate they want to see lose in the general election.

However, if you do that, you give up the opportunity to vote in their own party's primary, because you can only vote in one primary. Also, what if you try to get the other party to nominate a terrible candidate and then that person ends up winning in November? That's quite a risk to take.

Open primaries only exist in a handful of states. But as several people here have already pointed out to you, in most states there are party registration requirements to vote in a primary. These are called closed primaries.

Theoretically, a closed primary means only self-professed Republicans select the Republican candidate, and only self-professed Democrats vote in the Democratic primary (and the same for the Greens, Libertarians, etc). That is mostly the case, but anyone can register for any party. People aren't put on a polygraph machine to see if they really are Republicans or Democrats. So anyone could register for any party and try to influence things for whatever reason.

Really, you have the same opportunity for gaming the system in your country. What is to stop a German conservative from joining the SPD or Greens and trying to get them to put forth hopelessly extreme candidates? It's unlikely, but it's not impossible. The only way you could make it impossible is by hooking everyone up to a Polygraph. But most people wouldn't go to that trouble, and the same applies here. Most people just vote for the candidate they like best.

[Spheric Harlot]

You had neglected to mention that people can only vote in a single primary.

(How is this verified, btw?)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You had neglected to mention that people can only vote in a single primary.

(How is this verified, btw?)

In Virginia, they tell you when you show up at the polls that voting in this primary means that's it for the election cycle. If you choose to go ahead and vote, your sign a piece of paper that checks off your name for the primaries for that year. If you show up again for another primary, they won't let you vote because you already cast your primary vote.

Of course, in the general election, you can vote for whoever you like. And you can vote again in any primary in the next cycle of elections.

The reason people aren't explaining ever detail of voting procedures in this country is because the details vary from state to state.

[itai195]

Originally posted by sideus:
Fixed�.

Vote tampering! Vote tampering!

[sideus]

Originally posted by itai195:
Vote tampering! Vote tampering!

Lol.