Comments on: Motive and opportunity

By: Rebecca Allen, PhD

Rebecca Allen, PhD — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:50:32 +0000

We’re now required to declare a party to vote in the primary in Washington, unfortunately (due to a court decision).

By: digamma

digamma — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:51:53 +0000

But when you’re forced to declare a party, “Independent” or “Non-Partisan” are still legitimate parties, right? That’s how it is in Pennsylvania, I think. The fun thing is working at the polls during a hotly contested closed primary and explaining to people who registered Independent why they can’t vote.

By: niq

niq — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:47:17 +0000

The people who want party identification are the parties themselves. If the parties know which voters are identified as Democrats or Republicans, they can be more accurate (and therefore cost effective) than if they don’t. So there is in fact a justification for good-government types that party ID is valuable information.

By: Glen

Glen — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:23:54 +0000

Why declare a party? I’ll bet that the SOBs who ran the scam “persuaded” the victims that they had to.

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:49:07 +0000

WA may not keep its new system—the WA Grange are supporting the very bogus Louisiana system—top two in the primary, no matter what party, go on to general election. I’ve voted in WA, GA, and CA —there’s really nothing in any of the three (Georgia and WA are pretty much the same—choose your party ballot at the primary door) to keep crossover voting from happening. I did it against Reagan in California for the primary and then re-registered as a Dem (it doesn’t matter for the general election, but matters for money) the next day. What the current WA system does do is prevent a person from being able to vote negatively and positively at the same time, while not having to be affiliated with any one party past that election. BTW —I got a signed card from W and Laura, too, and I have no idea why—I’ve never been registered Republican at my address, I’m college faculty, belong to a union, and donate to Amnesty International, public radio, and a couple of conservation groups. What mailing list did they buy?

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:44:36 +0000

A related issue is that the party nomination process in America is subject to state and federal regulation based on civil rights concerns—in the early 20th century, only whites could vote in the Democratic party primaries in the South, and since the South was a one-party region this effectively disenfranchised blacks (even beyond poll taxes and literacy tests). Open and semi-open primaries were designed and adopted in part to counter this phenomenon. This coopting of parties into the formal system—the “public utility” model, as it has been dubbed by political scientists—has led to the further entrenchment of the existing parties, along with other institutional advantages (most notably preferred ballot status or lower qualifying petition requirements and/or fees in many states).

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:04:22 +0000

Well you left out the apology, although I must commend your candor. Not everyone would want to admit working for MoveOn. By the way, those interested in another possibility on this story should look at my latest post.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:59:07 +0000

Jonathan, you make some good points. Laws around internal party procedures, including the requirement to hold primaries, date mostly from the Progressive era. The goal was to prevent party leaders from handpicking candidates. In this it has succeeded, tho I would not argue that the replacement of support from party leadership with money & cleberity as key factors in getting on the ballot is an advance for democracy.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:42:48 +0000

I’ve never understood why the party system is so built into the governmental election system in the United States. I grew up in Canada, and it always struck me as ridiculous that in the US the government has a role in choosing the candidates that the parties will run. Besides being unnecessary governmental intrusion, it allows the parties to slough off the cost of their primaries onto the taxpayers. In Canada, where the party system is broken in quite different ways than it is in the US, the government runs only the actual elections. The parties themselves are responsible for choosing their candidates and leaders, by whatever means they choose. If you are a member of the party (which is something you and the party sort out, and usually involves paying some small annual fee, just enough to discourage people from signing up on a lark to muck with them) then you have some sort of voice in who gets selected, through methods of varying degrees of democracy. This sort of system has at least two advantages. One I’ve mentioned already, having the parties pay for their own damn primaries. The other is more significant—by not registering as part of a given party, the ability to craft exquisitely gerrymandered districts is greatly reduced. One of the few things I agree with the Economist about w/rt US politics is that gerrymandered districts is doing real damage to democracy.

By: jif

jif — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:06:35 +0000

I’ve registered in three locations- Massachusetts, New York and Washington DC- and all three ask you to check off a party or as an independent. (You can be a green in DC!) But being an independent usually meant that you couldn’t vote in any of the primaries. But switching is okay- my father switched to Rep. in Mass. to vote for McCain in the 2000 primaries, and then switched back to Dem. As a result he has received a dozen “signed” photographs of GeeDubya and Laura this year. We take comfort that he is doing his small part to empty the GOP coffers. He shows them off at the MoveOn events my mom hosts.

By: Mary Kay

Mary Kay — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:04:26 +0000

Chris C: It says in the instructions area of that national voter reg thing that some states request race to administer the Federal Voting Rights Act. It would make some sense that Southern states would be the ones most likely to have problems in this area requiring monitoring. I’m sorry you find ways of doing things that differ from your expectations creepy. There are huge differences in the way the US political system and parliamentary systems worked which are often disguised by the fact that both are referred to as democratic. Political parties function very differently. In many races they do not select the candidates, that’s what the primaries do. Frankly I prefer a system in which only people registered as a particular party can vote in that party’s primaries. The way Washington state did it this year, where you didn’t declare a party on registering, but when you decided what section of the ballot to fill out, makes a certain amount of sense, but many people found it very confusing. MKK

By: Chris Corrigan

Chris Corrigan — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:54:53 +0000

Thanks Chris…I went and had a look. Phew! Here in Canada you can show up on election day with two pieces of ID and vote. Or you can register by ticking a box on your tax return and your info is forwarded to Elections Canada. At any rate, I noticed on the US form that several states ask for your race or ethnic group. The hair on my neck stood up when I saw that. It reminds me of my wife’s South African birth certificate that identifies her as “white.” What on earth is that information used for? demographics I suppose. Although it seems that a preponderance of southern states request this while others instruct you to leave it blank. Creepy.

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:06:11 +0000

Chris: The short answer is: operating elections is a reserved power of the states. And there’s nothing “difficult” about it: go here, fill out the form, and mail it in. It works in 48 of 50 states (ND doesn’t have voter registration, and WY and NH don’t accept it for various reasons).

By: barrisj

barrisj — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:17 +0000

The situation in WA now requires that voters in primaries select one of several ballots, which reflects either the party for which the voter wishes to cast his/her candidate votes, or “non-partisan”, which permits voting only for candidates for offices having no party designation (and disallows voting for partisan candidates). Voter registration requires no statement of party affiliation.

By: Erik

Erik — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:45:09 +0000

Ted’s absolutely right. This is a practice that ought to be done away with as it obviously creates opportunities for fraud. If parties desperately want to hold primaries, there are pretty straightforward solutions for that.