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

(+) Yeah! (+)

streamofthesky posted...

You said

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

most votes = winner

---

I think we should totally go social media on our elections, and basically have candidates start from grass roots local/areas, and move up through local elections, over the year prior to the main election.

Each candidate needs to provide a website that breaks down their beliefs/stances etc, shows their experience and who they are. Everyone gets to vote based on SS# and you end up with the people the country as a whole actually wanted.

Most votes win....end of story. No more representatives, no more states getting x votes etc....it's done on the popular vote totally at this point.

We don't need the out dated methods anymore, they are archaic and just put all the power in the very wealthy.

---

dancer62 posted...

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.

No. They should allow you to vote for either party.
---

Revelation34 posted...

No. They should allow you to vote for either party.

This. You shouldn't have to choose your party. You should just be able to vote on whoever is on the ballot...
---

It was that way here, they just changed it, hence me making this thread.

They also decided to not only change it, but make the info public. I that that is even worse.

But I have heard no uproar, not even a peep to be honest from anyone else around here, so it's just me, and I'll just shut up because it honestly doesn't affect me and I'm not fighting a war for someone who doesn't even care.

---

Revelation34 posted...

No. They should allow you to vote for either party.

You can vote for either party. Or no party. You just have to declare which primary to vote in.

---

LinkPizza posted...

This. You shouldn't have to choose your party. You should just be able to vote on whoever is on the ballot...

So, the Republicans run a conservative in the Democratic primary and all turn out to vote for him, and thanks to the other candidates being actual Democrats and splitting the vote, the mole gets the plurality and wins.

Brilliant.

dancer62 posted...

You can vote for either party. Or no party. You just have to declare which primary to vote in.

Oh you're trolling.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Oh you're trolling.

or you're dense. It's pretty simple, unless you sit on both sides of the stadium, wear both colors, and cheer for both teams in football games. Choose a team or not, cheer or not, it's not real complicated.

---

dancer62 posted...

or you're dense. It's pretty simple, unless you sit on both sides of the stadium, wear both colors, and cheer for both teams in football games. Choose a team or not, cheer or not, it's not real complicated.

The irony of that first sentence when you can't even understand a simple point.
---

wolfy42 posted...

in order to vote for the primaries

I thought the primaries were always party specific.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I thought the primaries were always party specific.

In some states they have been, but not in the states I have lived in. This just changed in Washington (where I live), which is why I posted. I guess most of the US is used to it, and most of the posters think i'm a wanker for complaining, but whatever, it was new to me and I don't like it.

---

streamofthesky posted...

So, the Republicans run a conservative in the Democratic primary and all turn out to vote for him, and thanks to the other candidates being actual Democrats and splitting the vote, the mole gets the plurality and wins.

Brilliant.

Or just forget about the parties and just put the names on the ballot. In the end, Especially in this case, the republicans can all go out and say they're democrats and vote on whoever they think is the worst to get that person to be the democrats pick and sabotage them that way. Which is also bad...
---

wolfy42 posted...

This just changed in Washington (where I live), which is why I posted.

I think in 2018 there were news stories about people complaining they weren't allowed to vote because they didn't understand the difference between general elections and midterm elections.

As I understand the process a primary is when candidates for a party are nominated, general election is when a party candidate is chosen. Voters generally need to have registered with that party in order to participate.

It could be beneficial if the general public could select the best representatives that each party has to offer. However other parties would try to make the weakest representative the opposing candidate to pit against their best.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It could be beneficial if the general public could select the best representatives that each party has to offer. However other parties would try to make the weakest representative the opposing candidate to pit against their best.

And that's the thing. In other elections, that makes more sense. Though, both sides could do it. But in this case, it's a little different. Because the republicans side can use Trump, meaning that in this case, couldn't republicans register as democrats and vote the worst person as it is. It sort of makes more sense if both sides had multiple picks because why waste a vote on the other side when you need your vote to make sure you choice gets nominated. But if you aren't worried about your side getting nominated, you can still use your vote to sabotage the other side...
---

They did that here since at least I started voting and it pisses me off because they didn't have one for 3rd parties. I voted for Kasich but voted Johnson in the general election

---

The problem is that primaries aren't actually a real election. The parties just like to make people think they're a real election because it gives the illusion that the system is less rigged than it actually is.

wolfy42 posted...

I think we should totally go social media on our elections, and basically have candidates start from grass roots local/areas, and move up through local elections, over the year prior to the main election.

Each candidate needs to provide a website that breaks down their beliefs/stances etc, shows their experience and who they are. Everyone gets to vote based on SS# and you end up with the people the country as a whole actually wanted.

Most votes win....end of story. No more representatives, no more states getting x votes etc....it's done on the popular vote totally at this point.

We don't need the out dated methods anymore, they are archaic and just put all the power in the very wealthy.

While i wont say electoral college or whatever is perfect by any means, basically letting a hand full of cities have that much power in presidential elections would be a step down.

---

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?

Write ins.

Fair point. Still gotta declare as one party or the other to get your foot in the door though.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

While i wont say electoral college or whatever is perfect by any means, basically letting a hand full of cities have that much power in presidential elections would be a step down.

But that's already how it's done. In any given state, candidates only need to focus on two or three counties/cities to win the entire state, especially states like California, Texas and New York, where the majority of voters are in one or two cities in each.

---

TyVulpine posted...

But that's already how it's done. In any given state, candidates only need to focus on two or three counties/cities to win the entire state, especially states like California, Texas and New York, where the majority of voters are in one or two cities in each.

Thats atleast broken down to states and not just a few cities for a whole country. As said its not perfect but its better than the alternative. What georgia wants is likely to vastly differ from what new york or California want.

---

Reminder that New York and California combined are still a tiny minority of the American population

---

Blighboy posted...

Reminder that New York and California combined are still a tiny minority of the American population

also europe

---

Blighboy posted...

Reminder that New York and California combined are still a tiny minority of the American population

NY and Ca combined make up about 58 million people, or 17.8% of the population.

---

TyVulpine posted...

NY and Ca combined make up about 58 million people, or 17.8% of the population.

Yeah so? Texas and Florida have 51 million people.

There are more dem in CA/NY then Rep in Texas/Flor but it's not like 10% more over all by population.

It is certainly not enough to make the whole current system make sense at this point.

---

TyVulpine posted...

NY and Ca combined make up about 58 million people, or 17.8% of the population.

that's literally what i said

---

Blighboy posted...

that's literally what i said

Not really. You simply said a tiny minority, which could have meant anything.

---

It actually can only mean what I actually said.

---

So George has risen from the dead and making you declare a side?
I thought he was against the party system.

---

Ogurisama posted...

So George has risen from the dead and making you declare a side?
I thought he was against the party system.

Dude lies.

He also totally cut down apple trees.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Dude lies.

He also totally cut down apple trees.

Turns out, he lied about that, too...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Turns out, he lied about that, too...

Figures, I bet he freaking planted them. Normal politician I guess.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Dude lies.

He also totally cut down cherry trees.

FTFY

---

LinkPizza posted...

And that's the thing. In other elections, that makes more sense. Though, both sides could do it. But in this case, it's a little different. Because the republicans side can use Trump, meaning that in this case, couldn't republicans register as democrats and vote the worst person as it is. It sort of makes more sense if both sides had multiple picks because why waste a vote on the other side when you need your vote to make sure you choice gets nominated. But if you aren't worried about your side getting nominated, you can still use your vote to sabotage the other side...

Operation Chaos 2020

South Carolina voters do not register by party and are allowed to vote in either partys contest. After the state Republican Party canceled its primary this year out of deference to Trump, activists long angered by Democrats allegedly participating in local Republican votes saw an opportunity for payback.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Operation Chaos 2020

South Carolina voters do not register by party and are allowed to vote in either partys contest. After the state Republican Party canceled its primary this year out of deference to Trump, activists long angered by Democrats allegedly participating in local Republican votes saw an opportunity for payback.

Ok. Are you saying that it's bad because they can vote for who they think is the worst democrat? Because if so, that doesn't matter this election as they can already do that. With Trump being probably the only republican nominee (IIRC), republicans can already vote for the "worst" democrat nominee already since they can feel safe knowing Trump will most likely be the republican nominee... If that's what you're saying, at least...
---

I think it's bad for the country as a whole. What the people need are the best minds making the strongest arguments for what should be done and how. Political parties trying to sabotage each other doesn't give that.

---