Changing my political party

[Forty-Two]

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.

See, I just moved from Illinois to California, and while I looked forward to the change in climate (it's so sunny so often!), I didn't fully anticipate the change in political climate. In Illinois, I was proud to be a Democrat. Sure, our politicians were corrupt, but that's par for the course. In Illinois politics, the trick is to stay just slightly less corrupt than your opponents. In some ways, party affiliation in Illinois is determined by your personal opinion of what can be considered corrupt and how much it offends you. For the most part, though, there isn't much of a difference between Illinois Democrats and Republicans; both are fairly moderate and voters usually chose based on the national party rhetoric of pro-choice vs. pro-life, for or against business legislation, and whether or not you think Alan Keyes is a raving lunatic (most Illinoisans voted that he is).

Then I moved to California. California's state government is much different; for one thing, Californians get to vote on propositions. When I first came out, I thought it was an interesting way to let the people's voice be heard, but the more I thought about it and read the actual propositions, the more I realize it's just a way for California legislators to distance themselves from taking responsibility for the laws they pass. Since I'm a firm believer in the democratic republic, the propositions are beginning to annoy me. Still, this is the first time I felt the weight of personal responsibility in a statewide election, so I did my civic duty and faithfully read through the Official Voter Information Guide that was mailed to my apartment.

It was... disconcerting. The first thing I noticed was that most of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates couldn't write in complete sentences ("Schools not jails. We could pay California's debt. Clean air and water. Speak truth to power.") Repressing my inner grammar Nazi, I focused on the content of the candidates' platforms and not their rhetoric. Most talked about increasing income taxes on the rich, publicly-funded daycare, and some things that sounded like government in the form of a nanny state. Sure, I'd realized that those ideas were under the umbrella of the national Democratic party, but Illinois didn't focus as much on those specific issues. I was really disappointed that I couldn't find a candidate I could get behind.

I conveyed this disappointment to my native Californian husband only to find that he'd anticipated my reaction. He pointed out the Republican section of the voter guide -- Pretty much every statement was about business and tax reform. "But...but where's all the 'family values' rhetoric? Where's the anti-gay marriage outrage? Why aren't I afraid of these candidates turning America into a theocracy?!" After consulting the Statements of Purpose for the various parties, I discovered that xenophobic theocracy is the goal of the American Independent Party in California. California Republicans are actually the moderates. In order to vote for candidates that reflected my view of government, I would have to change parties. (My Republican husband pointed out that, were we to move to the Deep South, he'd change parties as soon as he'd registered.) So, today I mailed in my registration form identifying myself as an R instead of a D.

Now I'm having an identity crisis. I didn't vote for President Bush, and I still don't like a lot of his policies, yet now I belong to the same party. I'm still rooting for a Democratic Congress come the mid-term elections, but my vote isn't going to contribute to that goal.

Has anyone else here moved and found your political opinions directing you to the opposite party?

 

[a_unique_person]

There are plenty of Austrlians who are doing just that. Every state is "left-wing" Labor, and has been for a number of elections, the Federal Government is the conservative "right-wing" "Liberal" party, and has been for over ten years.

 

[Zep]

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? If they ask "Which party", just say "None of your beeswax!"?

 

[Piscivore]

Political parties are becoming more and more disconnected from ideology, and are just syndicates geared towards obtaining and retaining power. IMO.

When enough people realise this, the revolution will begin. Then the sectarian violence.

I plan to be elsewhere by then. Sipping boat drinks and watching America burn on CNN.

 

[Forty-Two]

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? If they ask "Which party", just say "None of your beeswax!"?

The only reason I'm indentifying at all is to vote in the primaries. You can't influence which candidate gets your party's money if you don't let your party know you're a member.

In other surveys, though, I do leave party and race out of it.

 

[rudar]

Huh. Here in Soviet Canuckistan, if you want to vote for party leaders (I assume that's sort of what the primaries are), you join the party, for about $10... Nothing really to stop you from joining multiple parties, and voting for incompetents in parties you don't like...

But yeah, things are messed up here as far as party names go. Federally, the Liberals are ``left'', and the Conservatives ``right'', but provincially, the BC Liberals are ``right'' and the NDP ``left''... Not sure about other provinces, though, but I wouldn't put any stock by what the party name is, and very little by whether the party is generally considered leftwing or right... I generally vote for fringe parties and hope we can soon jettison this imbecilic first-past-the-post system in favour of something more sane, but that's just me

 

[Tricky]

Yes, the party definitions vary widely by state. I grew up in the Deep South (Alabama) and for a long time, the Democrats controlled everything, as we still hadn't forgiven Lincoln. But the Democrats were horribly corrupt and horribly racist. George Wallace was the man I hated most in the world. When I first started seeing Republicans get some voting power, I cheered mightily.

Then came LBJ, and the Dixiecrats revolted. They were still Democrats in name, but they hated everything the national Democratic party stood for. Eventually they became Republicans, not so much forgiving Lincoln as forgetting him. But LBJ was a warmonger who was sending my friends and classmates off to Viet Nam, so I had a difficult choice. (Well, it wasn't really a choice because I was too young to vote, but I was always political.) Barry Goldwater is what we would now call a liberal, and he made sense to me. He wasn't a racist, even though his party used racist smear tactics against Johnson in the south. He was fiscally conservative and fairly uncorrupted, as far as I could tell. I would have voted for him.

But then came Nixon, and the national GOP began to metamorphose into a disgusting bunch of liars and thieves. Still, I thought they had better ideas in some arenas, and indeed I was very scared of Jimmy Carter, so I voted for Ford (I could vote by that time). Turns out I was wrong about Jimmy, but he still wasn't what you'd call a great president. 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. Yet he never seemed to catch much flak. It made no sense to me. I didn't much care for Clinton when he was running, but again, the Dem's surprised me. He was a capable and effective president who our allies loved and who kept the economy rolling. He was also pretty much a Republican. He cut welfare and brought fiscal responsibility, rattled his saber when needed and did an okay job, though I'm still ticked off at him for waffling so much on everything.

And in the legacy of Reagan, the Repubs (on the national level, not necessarily California) are the hateful, greedy crooks that I grew up thinking were Democrats. My how times change. But I'd still vote for McCain against almost anybody I see on the Democratic forefront, if the GOP would nominate him. But I don't think they will. He's too uncontrollable. He's liable to be honest, and that would topple their empire.

I'd love to be a Goldwater Republican again, if they'd only produce a Goldwater.

 

[Tricky]

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? If they ask "Which party", just say "None of your beeswax!"?

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.

 

[Forty-Two]

But I'd still vote for McCain against almost anybody I see on the Democratic forefront, if the GOP would nominate him. But I don't think they will. He's too uncontrollable. He's liable to be honest, and that would topple their empire.

I agree with you there. I'd be voting for McCain even if I were still a Democrat; no one in either party could do a better job, in my opinion. But since he doesn't kowtow to the GOP's most vocal lobbyists, his chances of getting the nomination are slim. It's too bad; he'd win in a landslide.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm an Independant.

In my state, an Independant can vote in either the D or R primary...but has to promise not to vote in both.

I obey the rules.

If I like the D candidate and he is strong, I'll vote for the weakest R candiate in the primary. Vice-Vice-Versa.

Game theory 101

 

[Zep]

OK, I'm now wandering in ignorance.

"Primaries"?? Can someone give some ground-rules 101 on registering to vote in the USA?

 

[clarsct]

*chuckle*

You foriegners and your multi-party systems....

Basically, each party has a 'primary' election, in which different candidates from the same party run against each other. When a winner is decided by popular vote(or so they say, not a CT, but skeptical), then the winner wins the honor of running in the REAL election, against the oposing party(ies).

 

[aerocontrols]

*chuckle*

You foriegners and your multi-party systems....

Basically, each party has a 'primary' election, in which different candidates from the same party run against each other. When a winner is decided by popular vote(or so they say, not a CT, but skeptical), then the winner wins the honor of running in the REAL election, against the oposing party(ies).

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.

 

[Whoracle]

The democrats in California are a mafia. It's why I can't be a liberal anymore. Maybe liberal governments elsewhere are more efficient but here it doesnt happen. We are one of the most highly taxed states in the nation and we have little to show for it. Every time the schools beg for money we give it to them. Yet our primary education system sucks. We keep raising taxes for more services and all get our bloated, ineffecient bureaucracies. Yet somehow the democrats have a deathgrip on this state.

As for the theocracy stuff, the most republican areas in California are areas with lots of money. They aren't interested in a theocracy, they are just interested in saving a ton of money on their taxes because they are in the highest tax bracket and are part of "the rich" that those democrats love to tax so much.

My guess, or maybe just my hope is that as the AMT starts to hit more people the democrats will start losing elections as people can't write off their state taxes anymore and get stuck with big tax bills. I doubt this tax the rich rhetoric will work so well when people making at the low end of "the rich" scale start getting soaked by the AMT.

 

[Zep]

*chuckle*

You foriegners and your multi-party systems....

Basically, each party has a 'primary' election, in which different candidates from the same party run against each other. When a winner is decided by popular vote(or so they say, not a CT, but skeptical), then the winner wins the honor of running in the REAL election, against the oposing party(ies).

Aaah! I see what you are referring to. Thank you!

We call this process "preselection", and here. The actual preselection process is up to the internal machinations of each political party to make their choices of candidates for election. Certainly it is no part of the official electoral process. Usually it is just the party members who make these decisions, and often it is not even a voted selection - it's often smoke-filled back room finagling and deals, or even in some cases, back-street brawls!

I think the difference is in understanding about the term "registering to vote". Here, with compulsory voting, you register to vote when you turn 18 simply so that they can put you on the electoral roll for your local district (parliamentary seat). This allows the electoral officer at each election to tick your name off as having voted. Which means if you move house to another district, you only have to let the Electoral Commission know of your change of seat. So "registering to vote" has nothing at all to do with any political party.

Of course, if you want to join a political party for whatever reason, that's different again - it's much like joining a service or special interest group. You sign up, pay membership, and join in!

 

[peptoabysmal]

Then I moved to California. California's state government is much different; for one thing, Californians get to vote on propositions. When I first came out, I thought it was an interesting way to let the people's voice be heard, but the more I thought about it and read the actual propositions, the more I realize it's just a way for California legislators to distance themselves from taking responsibility for the laws they pass. Since I'm a firm believer in the democratic republic, the propositions are beginning to annoy me. Still, this is the first time I felt the weight of personal responsibility in a statewide election, so I did my civic duty and faithfully read through the Official Voter Information Guide that was mailed to my apartment.

Now I'm having an identity crisis. I didn't vote for President Bush, and I still don't like a lot of his policies, yet now I belong to the same party. I'm still rooting for a Democratic Congress come the mid-term elections, but my vote isn't going to contribute to that goal.

Has anyone else here moved and found your political opinions directing you to the opposite party?

Ugh. You really have to watch out for those propositions. I suppose it was a well intentioned idea, but it has become a way for developers and so forth to slip in whatever sneaky deals they want. Lobbying groups use them to slip in bogus "hate crimes" to further their causes.

Example: Recently a proposition H passed in my area. Everyone believed it was for a new college on the outskirts of town. It was for a small private Catholic college, and that was the smaller portion of the plan. The rest was to develop a whole community around this college. I have watched thousands of acres of farmland gobbled up in the last 10 years by developers putting in, not tract homes, but almost communities of huge mansions in every square inch they can wrangle. There is no plan for infrastructure with these developments. Where is the extra police force? Fire? How about water and sewage? They dig wells into an already stressed aquifer and septic tanks. How about street lights? Yes, in the developments themselves, but not enough in the surrounding areas making them new crime hot spots.

Anyway, welcome to the dark side.

I've lived in California most of my life (a few spots in the Midwest as well) from San Francisco to San Diego. I've gotten to know this state pretty well. I voted Democrat most of my life, but changed parties a couple of years ago.

Living in California is like being able to watch the evolution of liberals at the mutation stage. This is what they will someday become.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

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? If they ask "Which party", just say "None of your beeswax!"?

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.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

OK, I'm now wandering in ignorance.

"Primaries"?? Can someone give some ground-rules 101 on registering to vote in the USA?

The primaries are preliminary elections, for the purpose of picking the candidates for each party.

 

[davefoc]

It seems like forty-two's political views are at least somewhat similar to mine.

I have decided not to vote for any Republican for national office until the Democrats control at least the house and the senate. Although, I have almost always voted Republican, the current version of the Republican party seems to be pretty much of a criminal organization. The country could not long endure the level of corruption that they have foisted on us, not to mention the little issue of a war that the Republican president lied the country into.

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.

Voting for Kerry, was a little weird for me in the last election after almost thirty years of voting for Republcans, But I'm over the first time jitters now and voting for a few more Democrats might be a little easier this time around. It is a little sad. My Republican Representative seems like he might be a good guy. He certainly says all those nice fixcal conservative things I like to hear, still he is a member of the Republican party and that sounds like a good enough reason to vote against him to me.

.

 

[Art Vandelay]

OK, I'm now wandering in ignorance.

"Primaries"?? Can someone give some ground-rules 101 on registering to vote in the USA?

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.

davefoc

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

Did you mean "or"?