Changing my political party

[Seismosaurus]

I'm actually kind of curious as to how, say, the UK Green party decides who to put up as their candidate for Mayor of London. Do the party elders just decide who it will be in a smoke-filled back room, like US parties used to do?

Actually, I don't see what having a multi-party system has to do with the issue.

In the UK each party does it however they want. Mostly the parties have local branches in each constituency. You apply to the local branch to be their representative, they pick a short list and interview them, then pick the one they like best and that's the candidate.

Historically this has led to some rather iffy people getting in, and most parties nowdays allow the central party office some degree of control. For instance Labour once passed a rule saying that many local branches had to have women only on their short lists, so as to boost the number of female MPs. IIRC, Labour also has a rule that the party's ruling body has power of veto over the choice in each constituency, but I'm not sure of that.

 

[Zep]

Well, where I went, 101 was an upper division course. But here's how it works: if you are eighteen (or will be eighteen before the next election), a citizen, and a resident of a particular county, then you can fill out a form, mail it (free postage), and thus become registered to vote in the county in question. On your registration, you can choose a party, or choose the "decline to state" option (Note that you should not say "independent". Or "independant", for that matter. There is a party called "The Independent Party", which I don't think should be allowed.) If you choose a party, then you get to vote in their primaries, and you get a special voting packet that has the candidate statements for that party. If you DTS, then you may be allowed to vote in primaries (it depends on the state and the party what the exact rules are). In a primary, different people get different ballots, depending on their party. Otherwise, party affiliation is unimportant and everyone gets the same ballot.

Again, many thanks! It's always great asking questions here - someone always has a good answer!

I think where I was confused was official the involvement of the registration process in party-related selection of candidates. That's unheard of here - the line of involvement stops outside party rooms.

 

[Ladewig]

Nope, you have to pick one primary to vote in, but it doesn't mean you have to vote for them in the general election. I'm a registered Republican in fact, even though I would not vote for a Republican in a general election in Texas. But they're going to win anyway, so the best I can do is try to make the least horrible one get their nomination. I have to immediately wash my hands after voting in the primaries.

In Texas, people who vote in primaries cannot sign petitions to get third-party candidates on the ballot. I quit voting in primaries years ago so that I could sign candidate petitions. Go Kinky.

 

[BPSCG]

In Texas, people who vote in primaries cannot sign petitions to get third-party candidates on the ballot. I quit voting in primaries years ago so that I could sign candidate petitions. Go Kinky.

For the non-Texans, that last sentence refers to this. Kinky Friedman's campaign slogan is, "How Hard Could It Be?"

Friends in the Dallas area have a Kinky-for-Governor bumper sticker, with the Lone Star Flag emblazoned on it.

Except the famous Texas five-pointed Lone Star is replaced with a Star of David...

 

[Tricky]

In Texas, people who vote in primaries cannot sign petitions to get third-party candidates on the ballot. I quit voting in primaries years ago so that I could sign candidate petitions. Go Kinky.

That's true, and it is why I skipped the primaries this time. But Kinky has been an enormous disappointment. He hasn't campaigned at all, even though he promised us this was not a joke. By contrast, Strayhorn, the other independant candidate, has been constantly in the news and has been acting like a person running for office. If Kinky doesn't get off his butt, he will become a laughing stock. But then, he's always been most interested in humor, as the name of his former band, "The Texas Jew-boys" indicates.

 

[BPSCG]

He hasn't campaigned at all, even though he promised us this was not a joke.

Assuming both those statements are true, is it possible there's a coherent strategy to that? Campaigning as an "outsider," it would seem to make more sense to focus his fire on whoever the Democrat and Republican candidates turn out to be. If he starts campaigning hard now, he ends up having to defend his positions from three or four or five other candidates, two or three months earlier than he would otherwise. Keep a low profile now so as not to be a target, then after the primaries, come out swinging at two candidates.

Just a theory. It's always a mistake to misunderestimate Texans, and Rick Perry and whoever the Dems nominate might find themselves saying, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy" in November.

 

[hammegk]

.... But Ronald Reagan did all he could to turn me into a lifelong Democrat. His was the most deceitful, corrupt, greedy, hate-mongering administration I had ever seen, putting Tricky Dick far behind in terms of scandal.

You appear to have overlooked JFK (there was a real voting fraud scandal that Statesman Nixon chose not to pursue), LBJ (need I say more), and Bil/Hil.

Each to his own I guess.

 

[Major Billy]

Out of curiosity and ignorance: Why do you need to be associated with ANY party when you register to vote? Can't you just register, and that's it?

By registering with a party you get to vote for whom that party nominates. As an Independent you only get 2 choices. (3 in MN)

 

[davefoc]

davefoc wrote:

I have decided not to vote for any Republican for national office until the Democrats control at least the house and the senate.

Art Vandelay wrote:

Did you mean "or"?

I meant "and". The "at least part" referred to the possibility of the Democrats controlling the presidency also.

IMHO, the principal ideology of the Republicans holding national office is support for a kind of industrial aristocracy. The Republican idea of the purpose for the national treasury is to reward their industrial benefactors. If I have to choose between Democrats (support for rapatious labor unions,support for greedy lawyers, suport for wacky environmentalists, and a penchant for counterproductive meddling in the economy) and Republicans (shoveling cash out the door to their wealthy benefactors faster than it comes in and Republicans starting wars based on lies) I'm going to choose Democrats.

If anybody still believes there is a hint of honest goverrnment in Republican policies one just needs to look at how lobbying reform has gone in the wake of the Abramhoff scandals. Exactly no where. Of course, one of the main reasons for this might be that the Democrats sense blood in the water so they don't want to break up the lobbying money machine the Republicans have built up. They just want to keep it in place so that it is going full out when they take over and can use it to their advantage.

So the choice is to vote for Republicans that we know are corrupt or Democrats who probably will be when they take over the government.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I meant "and". The "at least part" referred to the possibility of the Democrats controlling the presidency also.

I don't see that it makes much sense to base your vote for the next president based on who the current president is.

(support for rapatious labor unions,

I just discovered that "rapatious Mujahedeen" is a Googlewhack, except for the misspelling (it should be "rapacious").

I think where I was confused was official the involvement of the registration process in party-related selection of candidates. That's unheard of here - the line of involvement stops outside party rooms.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but there isn't a whole lot of official involvement. You're allowed to declare a party at the same time you're registered, but it's not required. And the government collects the votes for primary elections, but it's still officially the party that decides. I suppose that if your party wanted to, it could hold a completely independent primary election, without any government involvement. But I'm not sure what the rules on that are.

By registering with a party you get to vote for whom that party nominates.

I think that should be "you get to vote on". Slight difference of emphasis. "vote for" implies that the party nominates someone, and you can vote for that person. "vote on" means that you can vote, and your vote helps decide who the party nominates.

 

[zakur]

In Ohio, one's party affiliation is declared and changed only by casting a ballot in a particular party’s Primary Election. Technically, you could change parties at every primary if you wanted to. Ohio is a closed primary state, so in a primary election, voters may only vote for candidates in their party.

I had been a registered Republican since I cast my first ballot, but in 2002 I left their ranks and now consider myself and Independent. Next Tuesday I will once again ask for an "Issues Only" ballot, which allows me to vote on issues in a primary without declaring my politics. Besides, even if I did ask for the Republican ballot, how could I rationally choose between gubernatorial candidates Ken Blackwell and Jim Petro?

Next week it's just one issue for me - my municipality has a street maintenance levy up for renewal. Of course, the local republicans are up in arms over it because they are rabidly anti-taxation of any kind. Mind you, this is a renewal, not a new levy, so taxes will be unchanged. But apparently our local republicans are so anti-taxation that they don't care if potholes and curbs don't get fixed, curbside leaf collection is ended, and only major thoroughfares get plowed when it snows. Yet another reason why I can't stand being associated with that gang.

Note: Even though I have not cast a Republican primary ballot for 4 years, I'm still on their mailing list because I get their junk mail all the time.

 

[davefoc]

rapacious/rapatious:

As an engineer, I wrote hundreds of reports and specifications. But after thirty years of engineering writing being almost the only kind of writing I did, I find that there were hundreds if not thousands of words that I know that I never used. Anyway, I find a small amount of amusement everytime one of those words that floated around in my brain but that I never used pops into my writing. Usually I look them up to make sure of the spelling and that they mean what I thought, but I was on a bit of a rant and I find that kind of thing gets in the way of that kind of writing so I just leave it in place the way it comes out.

Art Vandely wrote:

I don't see that it makes much sense to base your vote for the next president based on who the current president is.

As I have noted in other places I think Bush is the worst president of my life. But he didn't get to be president in a vacuum. The Republican party elites got what they wanted. A pliable, anti-science, pro-graft, happy talking dolt. If I am not to hold the Republican party responsible for that who should I hold responsible?

 

[Grammatron]

Yes, you can just register as "independant" or "non-partisan" (terminology will vary by state). THe only drawback is that, in some states, you won't be able to vote in the primaries.

In California it's "refuse to state" which is what I chose. Sure I don't get to vote in primaries, but screw the parties.

The thing I really hate about California, is not only do we shoot ourselfs with a big tax gun, but every time they do tax enough they spend more. Sometimes I wish bad, bad things upon the state government...

 

[Art Vandelay]

You seemed to be saying that you would vote for a Democrat, in part, not merely because of your concerns with Bush, but simply because he's a Republican. The impression that I got was that if a Republican is elected in 2008, that will make it more likely that you will vote for a Democrat in 2012, regardless of what kind of president the Republican is.

 

[Grammatron]

You seemed to be saying that you would vote for a Democrat, in part, not merely because of your concerns with Bush, but simply because he's a Republican. The impression that I got was that if a Republican is elected in 2008, that will make it more likely that you will vote for a Democrat in 2012, regardless of what kind of president the Republican is.

I think what I got is that he's seeking a balance in the Federal government. I am of similar view.

Having one party control things at such level is never a good thing, particularly since they forget what their position was once they get into power.

 

[Forty-Two]

In California, I feel pretty much the opposite. The Democrats control the Senate and the Assembly and they are pretty much a band of pro-union, pro-lawyer, anti-buisiness wackos. So for internal California elections I only vote for Republicans.

I agree with your assessment of California Democrats. My biggest problem with Republicans outside of California had been their social platform and their under-the-table deals with companies (I have no issue with corporations themselves, but I want them to be above-the-board). Imagine my relief when I found that most California Republicans, including Governor Schwarzenegger, are pro-choice and don't place prioity on things religious. Their economic conservatism qualifies them as Republican, but their indifference toward the Religious Right alienates them in a way from the mainstream GOP.

 

[Cynric]

I just re-registered to vote, this time identifying myself as a member of the party I was raised to despise. Although I do not regret my decision, I feel somewhat like a traitor.

Don't feel too bad. Fanatical devotion to one's "team" is one of the most corrosive forces in politics. Making a decision based on your judgement of the available evidence has to be applauded.

Go Forty-Two.

 

[Forty-Two]

Having one party control things at such level is never a good thing, particularly since they forget what their position was once they get into power.

It's so telling that both parties have railed against the filibuster whenever they've been in power, but clung to it as a cherished guaranteer of liberty when they've been the minority.

 

[epepke]

I've always registered Republican, because I like to vote for the person least likely to win in a general election in the primaries.

Plus I get the big pictures of Republican politicians, which fit better on the dartboard.