thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 5, 2021 13:19:08 GMT -5
Independent means unaffiliated with a political party. If a state has a primary election structure which is set up as the nominating process to select the person who will represent a political party in the general election, giving people who are not members of the party the opportunity to select their nominee does not seem appropriate to me. As Swamp said, Independence is a party (it tracks pretty closely with Republican, so its just another line for R candidates to run on). Unaffiliated is the official term for someone who doesn't register as D, R, I, G, L, Working Families, ... My objection to the closed primary system is that it gives those of us that are unaffiliated (Independent, if you insist) no vote during the primaries. No input into which candidates can/should be on the ballot. The only ones who can influence the choice of candidates are the die-hard party members. It's a self reinforcing system, leading to more extreme candidates over time. Republicans try to go more Republican, to be the most Republican candidate of the bunch (because in the closed primary they are only courting the votes of the die-hard party members, not the general public). Same for other parties. I think we'd get more moderate candidates if they had to face voters of all stripes in the primaries. I also object to being denied a voice/vote in the process. I could register with the major party I lean towards the most, to shape it's direction as I like. I could register with the major party I dislike the most, to try to shape it to be less distasteful or limit damages when it is in power. If I want to increase third party weight, I could register with one of them (but have little influence with the major parties). Each approach has drawbacks, and I'm limited to only one option. I can only have a voice in one small part, yet citizens in other states are not limited in the same manner. Registering for one party or the other isn't a life commitment with vast responsibilities. If you want to vote in the primary, change your registration. If the next time you want a say in the other party change your registration. You can vote for whomever, even if you are registered. In my state, changing affiliations took literally 3 minutes. If all primaries were wide open, I am not sure that would be any better. If one party could turn out voters for the other party's primary, they could do all kinds of damage.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Mar 5, 2021 13:40:12 GMT -5
Independent means unaffiliated with a political party. If a state has a primary election structure which is set up as the nominating process to select the person who will represent a political party in the general election, giving people who are not members of the party the opportunity to select their nominee does not seem appropriate to me. As Swamp said, Independence is a party (it tracks pretty closely with Republican, so its just another line for R candidates to run on). Unaffiliated is the official term for someone who doesn't register as D, R, I, G, L, Working Families, ... My objection to the closed primary system is that it gives those of us that are unaffiliated (Independent, if you insist) no vote during the primaries. No input into which candidates can/should be on the ballot. The only ones who can influence the choice of candidates are the die-hard party members. It's a self reinforcing system, leading to more extreme candidates over time. Republicans try to go more Republican, to be the most Republican candidate of the bunch (because in the closed primary they are only courting the votes of the die-hard party members, not the general public). Same for other parties. I think we'd get more moderate candidates if they had to face voters of all stripes in the primaries. I also object to being denied a voice/vote in the process. I could register with the major party I lean towards the most, to shape it's direction as I like. I could register with the major party I dislike the most, to try to shape it to be less distasteful or limit damages when it is in power. If I want to increase third party weight, I could register with one of them (but have little influence with the major parties). Each approach has drawbacks, and I'm limited to only one option. I can only have a voice in one small part, yet citizens in other states are not limited in the same manner. There is definitely no perfect system here. You get one vote in a primary so it is not possible to influence the direction of every party, major or minor, no matter how you try to parse it. I very strongly object that you are being "denied a voice". You have chosen to create a barrier for yourself to vote in a primary. You understand how the process works and you choose to take a path that does not allow you to cast a vote in a primary. You are absolutely not being denied a voice and claiming that you are is a terrible disservice to the people whose votes really are suppressed.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Mar 5, 2021 13:45:52 GMT -5
I do understand that New York State has chosen to use the word "unaffiliated" to label those who choose to be independent of any individual political party just as some states have chosen to use the word "independent" to label those who choose to not affiliate with any individual political party. I think that it makes sense that they do that in New York with the existence in that state of a political party with a party name that could create confuse. I would even support a nation wide move to use the term unaffiliated instead of independent. A closed primary can actually give an incentive to the political parties' professional staff to push more moderate candidates in districts in which there is a significant number of truly unaffiliated voters. If either the Republican or Democrat primary voters select an extreme nominee, that allows the other to claim a more moderate position. If both go towards extremes, there is the potential of someone emerging in the middle. My state has a top two primary system with our ballots indicating which, if any, political party a candidate identifies with. In my part of the state, generally a Democrat is able to get enough votes to beat out the second strongest Republican candidate but there are plenty of times the general election is a choice between Republican A and Republican B. The top two system has tended to keep Democrats from voting for the more extreme Republicans as that just guarantees two GOP get through to the general. I don't think it has truly impacted the choices on the ballot for statewide offices other than removing anyone other than the R and D candidates as other than write in choices. I don't see my one vote in my state's system as more powerful than your one vote in your state's system. It only helps towards putting one name on the general election ballot. Interesting. So if I'm parsing it right - you can vote in the primary, decide which party to affiliate with at voting time (or none), but ultimately only two candidates get to move on to the general election, and they might both be of the same party (and effectively never a third party)? That's limiting in its own way, but very different from my situation. You have a vote in the primary. I do not, full stop, unless I register with one, and only one, party by some deadline many months in advance of the primary date. But on the general election day, I have a choice of usually 6-ish different party lines to vote for each race. Candidates can run on more than one line; usually one will be R, Conservative, Independence. The other may be D, WF, maybe S. Then there's the oddball Green or something else candidate. Sometimes one candidate gets both major party lines, but still has a minor party opponent. I really hate when there's only one candidate on half the lines, and no opposition. Lately candidates are swapping party affiliation when they run for a different office, in a different district. Dem in the city, but suddenly Rep in rural district?? You could very, very easily have a vote in the primary.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,026
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 5, 2021 16:53:29 GMT -5
Just looked - it's already too late to register for a party to vote in the June 22, 2021 primary. NYS does not make this easy.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,886
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 5, 2021 17:12:14 GMT -5
Just looked - it's already too late to register for a party to vote in the June 22, 2021 primary. NYS does not make this easy. That is crazy. I know government systems are antiquated, but they should not need more that a week to update their records. I know when you do your CE Credits, they are uploaded overnight and then you can renew your licensing - and that is Gov't and private systems combined. They don't need Four Months to process your party affiliation.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,026
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 5, 2021 19:29:08 GMT -5
As Swamp said, Independence is a party (it tracks pretty closely with Republican, so its just another line for R candidates to run on). Unaffiliated is the official term for someone who doesn't register as D, R, I, G, L, Working Families, ... My objection to the closed primary system is that it gives those of us that are unaffiliated (Independent, if you insist) no vote during the primaries. No input into which candidates can/should be on the ballot. The only ones who can influence the choice of candidates are the die-hard party members. It's a self reinforcing system, leading to more extreme candidates over time. Republicans try to go more Republican, to be the most Republican candidate of the bunch (because in the closed primary they are only courting the votes of the die-hard party members, not the general public). Same for other parties. I think we'd get more moderate candidates if they had to face voters of all stripes in the primaries. I also object to being denied a voice/vote in the process. I could register with the major party I lean towards the most, to shape it's direction as I like. I could register with the major party I dislike the most, to try to shape it to be less distasteful or limit damages when it is in power. If I want to increase third party weight, I could register with one of them (but have little influence with the major parties). Each approach has drawbacks, and I'm limited to only one option. I can only have a voice in one small part, yet citizens in other states are not limited in the same manner. There is definitely no perfect system here. You get one vote in a primary so it is not possible to influence the direction of every party, major or minor, no matter how you try to parse it. I very strongly object that you are being "denied a voice". You have chosen to create a barrier for yourself to vote in a primary. You understand how the process works and you choose to take a path that does not allow you to cast a vote in a primary. You are absolutely not being denied a voice and claiming that you are is a terrible disservice to the people whose votes really are suppressed. You are absolutely correct. Please forgive my petulant whining. I've been trying to figure out why this pushes my buttons. I think it's because, conceptually, I think of Independent as a positive option, not the absence of an option. You can choose Democrat, you can choose Republican, you can choose Green, etc. But somehow I can't "choose" Independent. I can only be unaffiliated by "choosing" nothing. The absence of a choice; the absence of a primary vote. And then there's the Orwellian named Independence party - clone of Republican party.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,104
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 5, 2021 20:52:56 GMT -5
As Swamp said, Independence is a party (it tracks pretty closely with Republican, so its just another line for R candidates to run on). Unaffiliated is the official term for someone who doesn't register as D, R, I, G, L, Working Families, ... My objection to the closed primary system is that it gives those of us that are unaffiliated (Independent, if you insist) no vote during the primaries. No input into which candidates can/should be on the ballot. The only ones who can influence the choice of candidates are the die-hard party members. It's a self reinforcing system, leading to more extreme candidates over time. Republicans try to go more Republican, to be the most Republican candidate of the bunch (because in the closed primary they are only courting the votes of the die-hard party members, not the general public). Same for other parties. I think we'd get more moderate candidates if they had to face voters of all stripes in the primaries. I also object to being denied a voice/vote in the process. I could register with the major party I lean towards the most, to shape it's direction as I like. I could register with the major party I dislike the most, to try to shape it to be less distasteful or limit damages when it is in power. If I want to increase third party weight, I could register with one of them (but have little influence with the major parties). Each approach has drawbacks, and I'm limited to only one option. I can only have a voice in one small part, yet citizens in other states are not limited in the same manner. I do understand that New York State has chosen to use the word "unaffiliated" to label those who choose to be independent of any individual political party just as some states have chosen to use the word "independent" to label those who choose to not affiliate with any individual political party. I think that it makes sense that they do that in New York with the existence in that state of a political party with a party name that could create confuse. I would even support a nation wide move to use the term unaffiliated instead of independent. A closed primary can actually give an incentive to the political parties' professional staff to push more moderate candidates in districts in which there is a significant number of truly unaffiliated voters. If either the Republican or Democrat primary voters select an extreme nominee, that allows the other to claim a more moderate position. If both go towards extremes, there is the potential of someone emerging in the middle. My state has a top two primary system with our ballots indicating which, if any, political party a candidate identifies with. In my part of the state, generally a Democrat is able to get enough votes to beat out the second strongest Republican candidate but there are plenty of times the general election is a choice between Republican A and Republican B. The top two system has tended to keep Democrats from voting for the more extreme Republicans as that just guarantees two GOP get through to the general. I don't think it has truly impacted the choices on the ballot for statewide offices other than removing anyone other than the R and D candidates as other than write in choices. I don't see my one vote in my state's system as more powerful than your one vote in your state's system. It only helps towards putting one name on the general election ballot. You of course remember when we had a blanket primary. That was the best for the voters, in that we could vote for anyone from any party in the primary. The parties then sued to force the end of that system and close their primaries. (Another reason to hate the parties, in my opinion.) The top-two system here was enacted by the legislature, vetoed by the Governor, struck down by the courts, enacted by citizen initiative, again struck down by the courts, and finally upheld and declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The history is interesting, as is the public approval for the top-two system as opposed to the closed primaries preferred by the parties. The initiative passed with nearly 60% of the vote. After the state held the first top-two primary in the country, 76% of voters approved. The earlier "pick-a-party" primary instituted after the end of the blanket primary was favored by only 21% of voters. It is nice to live in a state that respects its voters. History of Washington State Primary Systems We do not register by party in Washington, but we did have to declare a party to attend caucuses back in the day. Even that was not a hard and fast rule, however. I wanted to attend the 2012 Republican caucus even though I am Independent. I asked before going in if I were allowed to participate, and was told in effect that, "As long as you are willing to state that you are Republican for the day, you can go in." The only restriction was that we could not attend both Democratic and Republican caucuses in the same election season. That's fair so we couldn't vote twice.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Mar 5, 2021 23:18:53 GMT -5
There is definitely no perfect system here. You get one vote in a primary so it is not possible to influence the direction of every party, major or minor, no matter how you try to parse it. I very strongly object that you are being "denied a voice". You have chosen to create a barrier for yourself to vote in a primary. You understand how the process works and you choose to take a path that does not allow you to cast a vote in a primary. You are absolutely not being denied a voice and claiming that you are is a terrible disservice to the people whose votes really are suppressed. You are absolutely correct. Please forgive my petulant whining. [img class="smile" alt=" " src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/embarrassed.png"] I've been trying to figure out why this pushes my buttons. I think it's because, conceptually, I think of Independent as a positive option, not the absence of an option. You can choose Democrat, you can choose Republican, you can choose Green, etc. But somehow I can't "choose" Independent. I can only be unaffiliated by "choosing" nothing. The absence of a choice; the absence of a primary vote. And then there's the Orwellian named Independence party - clone of Republican party. I don't think you were petulant, I just disagreed with the characterization. I agree that the process is imperfect and can be frustrating, particularly if you don't strongly identify as one or the other. And yes, the NY "independence" party is poorly named and less than Independent! Independents are like Atheists. There are people who try to say that Atheism is it's own religion, but it's not - it's the disbelief in religion. So unfortunately us Atheists don't get to pick the pope.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,294
|
Post by swamp on Mar 6, 2021 16:25:59 GMT -5
Just looked - it's already too late to register for a party to vote in the June 22, 2021 primary. NYS does not make this easy. That is crazy. I know government systems are antiquated, but they should not need more that a week to update their records. I know when you do your CE Credits, they are uploaded overnight and then you can renew your licensing - and that is Gov't and private systems combined. They don't need Four Months to process your party affiliation. It stops people from packing primaries.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 6, 2021 17:05:41 GMT -5
Interesting. So if I'm parsing it right - you can vote in the primary, decide which party to affiliate with at voting time (or none), but ultimately only two candidates get to move on to the general election, and they might both be of the same party (and effectively never a third party)? That's limiting in its own way, but very different from my situation. You have a vote in the primary. I do not, full stop, unless I register with one, and only one, party by some deadline many months in advance of the primary date. But on the general election day, I have a choice of usually 6-ish different party lines to vote for each race. Candidates can run on more than one line; usually one will be R, Conservative, Independence. The other may be D, WF, maybe S. Then there's the oddball Green or something else candidate. Sometimes one candidate gets both major party lines, but still has a minor party opponent. I really hate when there's only one candidate on half the lines, and no opposition. Lately candidates are swapping party affiliation when they run for a different office, in a different district. Dem in the city, but suddenly Rep in rural district?? Our political party systems certainly does create interesting twists. yes.
for example, it is THEORETICALLY possible for a candidate to win a state with less than 1% of the vote. if there were 101 candidates on the ballot, and each of them got an even number of votes, but one candidate got one more, he would win the state in a WTA system.
of course, our parties work VERY hard to prevent such a possibility, by stonewalling challengers by every legal means possible.
|
|