Poll of the Day > Washington is forcing you to declare as rep or dem in order to vote

(+) Yeah! (+)

wolfy42 posted...

At least in CA and WA you could vote without declaring throughout my whole life (but havn't been in CA for awhile). There should be a third option and I certainly don't feel like it should be public knowledge on top of removing the third option. Your basically forcing people to choose a side.

In some ways, this could actually harm peoples careers as well, as republican owners of buisinesses etc, could now see which employees are democrats and fire them eventually (obviously for other reasons, but if you look for one, you can probably find it). I heard this was done in places like N Carolina etc, but it could easily start happening in Washington now as well.

What kind of idiotic shit is this?

Mead posted...

its the vote to choose the candidate

it is important

No its not.

I would never vote for a Democrat or a Republican so who they elect to be their figurehead is irrelevant

streamofthesky posted...

I'm also unaffiliated and locked out unless I temporarily join a party.

Or instead of pulling a Bernie Sanders you could permanently join a party. tbh, after Bernie quit then rejoined, the DNC should have even let him run as a Dem.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Get your shit together

That goes for all of y'all, too. Check your registrations and primary dates and go vote

She's right for once.

LinkPizza posted...

But Idk who I want to vote for...

Then decide who to vote against!

---

TerranceC posted...

No its not.

I would never vote for a Democrat or a Republican so who they elect to be their figurehead is irrelevant

okay buddy

---

It's a good system. Vote for somebody you don't like or don't vote at all.
---

I will never register as either Democrat or Republican. The two party system is stupid. Im registered currently as American Independent.

---

Zeus posted...

Then decide who to vote against!

I already know who to vote against. But that doesnt help as I have to vote FOR somebody...

Zeus posted...

you could permanently join a party.

Why does he have to, though? Maybe they dont always want to vote that way. The party thing is stupid, anyway. Why vote based on parties when you can just vote for who you like?
---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

I will never register as either Democrat or Republican. The two party system is stupid. Im registered currently as American Independent.

How does it feel to throw your vote away every election, since independents have no actual shot, and voting third party only serves to take votes away from possibly the better of the two major candidates?

---

TyVulpine posted...

How does it feel to throw your vote away every election, since independents have no actual shot, and voting third party only serves to take votes away from possibly the better of the two major candidates?

you dont have to vote for the winning candidate in order for your vote to matter

---

Zeus posted...

Or instead of pulling a Bernie Sanders you could permanently join a party. tbh, after Bernie quit then rejoined, the DNC should have even let him run as a Dem.

You, the guy who claims he's a "left leaning centrist" yet is always defending Trump...

Telling ME to pick a party? lulz... I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were at least actually unaffiliated w/ either party and just vote Republican. But apparently not!

wolfy42 posted...

WA state is forcing residents to declare on their voting ballets as either republican or democrat in order to vote for the primaries. Your declaration has to align with the vote inside as well.

This has never been a requirement in the past (anywhere that I know of), and I think it's unconstitutional. You should not have to be a republican or a democrat (or declare as one) in order to vote.

How are they even getting away with this?

Some states just do it that way. Mine does. If youre an independent you cant vote in primaries, only the general election.

---

you're talking about the primaries. as the DNC argued in court, no one in the US is owed a fair primary process. it can be as rigged as they want and it's perfectly legal. heck, they even went as far as to say that they can officially declare it's a fair process, accept money from people while telling them it's fair, and yet arbitrarily decide whatever they want at the end of the day, and the fact that people gave them money is actually an indication that people already know that it's rigged.

---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

Some states just do it that way. Mine does. If youre an independent you cant vote in primaries, only the general election.

I'd vote anyway just to piss them off.
---

Has always been true, since I was a kid in 1950s, at least. You have to declare which primary to vote in. It doesn't mean anything, except which primary you vote in. What's the big deal?

---

dancer62 posted...

Has always been true, since I was a kid in 1950s, at least. You have to declare which primary to vote in. It doesn't mean anything, except which primary you vote in. What's the big deal?

The big deal is they either force you to vote for somebody you don't like or not vote at all.
---

Revelation34 posted...

The big deal is they either force you to vote for somebody you don't like or not vote at all.

Also it hasn't always been true in all the states, including mine, so this is new to me, and I object.

My objection doesn't mean squat, it's less meaningful then Elle Woods objection to being slapped on the but.

But I still object.

---

LinkPizza posted...

I dont think Ive ever voted in the Primaries...

I haven't voted since Bush vs Kerry....

RC might yell at me if she reads this post.

---

Revelation34 posted...

The big deal is they either force you to vote for somebody you don't like or not vote at all.

Huh? You vote for who you vote for. You're only picking which primary to vote in. You can declare to vote in the Democratic primary, vote against your most-disliked Democrat, then vote Independent, Republican, Anarchist, Red Chinese, Martian Overlord, whatever you want in the main election. Or vice-versa.

Duh? What's the problem?

---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

I haven't voted since Bush vs Kerry....

RC might yell at me if she reads this post.

Quick! Let's hide behind that wall where she can't see us...

I have voted in the real elections, though. Just not Primaries...
---

Things are as they have been for my whole life, I have just become more disillusioned about them as time has gone on. I thought I could make a difference in my 20's and 30's, by my 40's I was pretty much sure I couldn't and now I just basically get annoyed by being reminded about it.

---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

I haven't voted since Bush vs Kerry....

RC might yell at me if she reads this post.

I mean, I'm kind of glad that someone who quotes one of the absolute worst presidents in U.S. history in his sig is not voting in the presidential elections....

Revelation34 posted...

The big deal is they either force you to vote for somebody you don't like or not vote at all.

Wrong. You're only choosing which primary to vote in. You can declare Democrat, vote against your most-disliked Democrat in the Primary, then vote Independent, Republican, Anarchist, Red Chinese, Martian Overlord, whatever, in the main election.

And your vote is private. It seems that people are confusing being a Delegate to your party's state Nominating Committee with being a registered voter. Nominating Committees choose who goes on the ballot, voters vote for what's on the ballot. Votes are private. Nominations are public.

What's the problem?

---

dancer62 posted...

Wrong. You're only choosing which primary to vote in. You can declare Democrat, vote against your most-disliked Democrat in the Primary, then vote Independent, Republican, Anarchist, Red Chinese, Martian Overlord, whatever, in the main election.

And your vote is private. It seems that people are confusing being a Delegate to your party's state Nominating Committee with being a registered voter. Nominating Committees choose who goes on the ballot, voters vote for what's on the ballot. Votes are private. Nominations are public.

What's the problem?

Who you vote for is private, but at least in WA if you regester to vote in a primary, it's public that you did so.

Which could cause problems in many peoples lives but whatever, it won't in mine, so I need to just stop caring.

---

streamofthesky posted...

I mean, I'm kind of glad that someone who quotes one of the absolute worst presidents in U.S. history in his sig is not voting in the presidential elections....

Just because I agree with his quote about the money and banking systems doesn't mean I think he was a good president.

---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Just because I agree with his quote about the money and banking systems doesn't mean I think he was a good president.

His actions towards the banking system are arguably the 2nd worst thing (cause nothing can top the Indian Removal Act and subsequent Trail of Tears) about his abominable presidency, though.
He broke up the federal banking system and made state run banks run by his pals. It was sheer crony capitalism, and led to a financial crisis that wouldn't be topped in severity until the Great Depression a century later.

streamofthesky posted...

His actions towards the banking system are arguably the 2nd worst thing (cause nothing can top the Indian Removal Act and subsequent Trail of Tears) about his abominable presidency, though.
He broke up the federal banking system and made state run banks run by his pals. It was sheer crony capitalism, and led to a financial crisis that wouldn't be topped in severity until the Great Depression a century later.

did you not read his post

---

LinkPizza posted...

So, I've been reading this, but I don't understand. Why do you have to pick a party to vote in the primaries? What is the point, anyway? I haven't actually read anything that would make this a necessity...

But it's not the real vote, right? It's just the pre-vote or whatever...

The idea is that you probably are leaning towards a particular candidate, or set of candidates, and the party they are currently affiliated with needs to determine who to run in the actual election. There isn't anything saying this has to be a 2 party system, but these people are out to win, it's just the 2 largest and most influential parties are trying to get their vote splintering out of the way early. It is a real vote, it's just not the title fight.

Red_Frog posted...

The idea is that you probably are leaning towards a particular candidate, or set of candidates, and the party they are currently affiliated with needs to determine who to run in the actual election. There isn't anything saying this has to be a 2 party system, but these people are out to win, it's just the 2 largest and most influential parties are trying to get their vote splintering out of the way early. It is a real vote, it's just not the title fight.

But then, what's point of making you pick one side early instead of just putting all the candidates on one poll like it would be for the election? Instead of making people pick a side and vote, they could just have everyone vote for whichever candidate. And based on which candidate they picked, you can kind of see which way they're leaning... I would think...
---

LinkPizza posted...

But then, what's point of making you pick one side early instead of just putting all the candidates on one poll like it would be for the election? Instead of making people pick a side and vote, they could just have everyone vote for whichever candidate. And based on which candidate they picked, you can kind of see which way they're leaning... I would think...

That's just how the parties have decided to operate, in an effort to preserve their selection processes.

Red_Frog posted...

That's just how the parties have decided to operate, in an effort to preserve their selection processes.

What do you mean by "Preserve their selection processes"?
---

LinkPizza posted...

What do you mean by "Preserve their selection processes"?

Basically, they don't want to be sabotaged, duplicitous votes are something they are attempting to avoid while they determine their champion. They want to focus their effort behind their strongest candidate, and hopefully not piss off the rest of the voters.

Revelation34 posted...

I'd vote anyway just to piss them off.

How would you get in? Cant vote without being registered, you would have to know the name of someone who is already on the list and take their place at their specific polling place.

---

dancer62 posted...

Wrong. You're only choosing which primary to vote in. You can declare Democrat, vote against your most-disliked Democrat in the Primary, then vote Independent, Republican, Anarchist, Red Chinese, Martian Overlord, whatever, in the main election.

And your vote is private. It seems that people are confusing being a Delegate to your party's state Nominating Committee with being a registered voter. Nominating Committees choose who goes on the ballot, voters vote for what's on the ballot. Votes are private. Nominations are public.

What's the problem?

And what if you don't like any of the democrats or republicans that are running in the primaries under the party you are registered under?

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

How would you get in? Cant vote without being registered, you would have to know the name of someone who is already on the list and take their place at their specific polling place.

Write ins.
---

The DNC is never gonna be trusted by voters until they get rid of super delegates

---

Mead posted...

The DNC is never gonna be trusted by voters until they get rid of super delegates

Super delegates are fine for their stated purpose.
I don't think they'd EVER be brazen enough to overrule the people's votes when one person got over 50% of the delegates or has a huge lead over the 2nd place person (like 45% vs. 30%). Cause that would literally destroy the party.

But for a situation where you've like a 35%/32%/30% near dead heat? Totally fine for the party to try and figure out who should be the nominee, and possibly go w/ the person in 2nd or 3rd place if they'll do better in a general election (since primaries are a bubble of mostly the party base and have all sorts of stupidity and problems, having a tiny lead over the next guy and far below a majority vote doesn't really mean shit).
I'm totally fine w/ that.

But what happened in 2016 where most of them committed publicly to Hillary before the primaries even started? That's ridiculous and intolerable. Makes it clear that the fix is in, and to the average person going on google to see delegate counts and seeing Hillary's bar like:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And Bernie's bar like:
xx
It basically discourages them from going out to vote for Bernie. He's "so far behind," what's the point?

TL;DR: They're fine as long as they're not allowed to pick a favorite before the primaries are over, and don't stupidly go against a clear voter favorite.

Mead posted...

The DNC is never gonna be trusted by voters until they get rid of super delegates

There's nothing super about them anyway.
---

streamofthesky posted...

But for a situation where you've like a 35%/32%/30% near dead heat? Totally fine for the party to try and figure out who should be the nominee, and possibly go w/ the person in 2nd or 3rd place if they'll do better in a general election (since primaries are a bubble of mostly the party base and have all sorts of stupidity and problems, having a tiny lead over the next guy and far below a majority vote doesn't really mean shit).
I'm totally fine w/ that.

fuck that

go with the candidate that voters chose

---

Is it possible to register for both parties?

---

Mead posted...

fuck that

go with the candidate that voters chose

They didn't really "choose" someone in that scenario. It's just a giant cluster fuck

Mead posted...

fuck that

go with the candidate that voters chose

Without ranked ballots that's a hard thing to say though

---

Blighboy posted...

Without ranked ballots that's a hard thing to say though

I agree we should have ranked ballots

---

Blighboy posted...

Without ranked ballots that's a hard thing to say though

Yup.
What if the 2nd and 3rd place people are both moderates but the guy in the lead is far left?

Did the voters REALLY choose the far left person?

The voting system is deeply flawed and terrible. If someone doesn't have a clear advantage at the end, the small lead means basically jack due to the issues inherent w/ the voting system. No more significant than a rounding error.

I'm metro!

---

streamofthesky posted...

Did the voters REALLY choose the far left person?

if more people voted for the candidate, then yes

thats how the democratic process should work

---

Mead posted...

if more people voted for the candidate, then yes

thats how the democratic process should work

But we don't have ranked voting, we have First Past the Post voting.
So that's not how the democratic process currently works.

streamofthesky posted...

But we don't have ranked voting, we have First Past the Post voting.
So that's not how the democratic process currently works.

thats why Im saying

fuck that

---

Mead posted...

thats why Im saying

fuck that

You said

Mead posted...

fuck that

go with the candidate that voters chose

While acknowledging that in the current system, they didn't really "choose" the person in the lead when it's a split race, necessarily

Revelation34 posted...

And what if you don't like any of the democrats or republicans that are running in the primaries under the party you are registered under?

Pick your primary, vote against your most-hated candidates. Or don't vote in a primary. I don't think it makes a lot of difference, the Dems are working overtime trying to find someone sure to lose to Trump, just like they did in 2016.

---

Red_Frog posted...

Basically, they don't want to be sabotaged, duplicitous votes are something they are attempting to avoid while they determine their champion. They want to focus their effort behind their strongest candidate, and hopefully not piss off the rest of the voters.

But can't that still happen? As others have said, you can change your party and vote for whoever to sabotage it. So, doesn't that make it pointless in certain cases like this one?
---

LinkPizza posted...

But can't that still happen? As others have said, you can change your party and vote for whoever to sabotage it. So, doesn't that make it pointless in certain cases like this one?

It is for this election, and probably for most.....but not neccesarily for all of them in the future.

Of course, since in general, republicans don't run another candidate if there is a republican in office, and demo's rarely do, it won't likely make any difference at all ever (since there is always a rep or dem pres in office).

So yeah, it really don't do much, and making the change in a state like Wash where it wasn't that way, basically only accomplished one thing. It now ensures anyone who wants to vote must register and that is now public knowledge.

Might not matter, but I am paranoid (not necesarrily wrong) that corporations/jobs that are heavily republican owned can/will use that to determine which employees to promote/fire etc. Could be wrong, but doubt I am.

---