Quote :

"Since when? Last I knew, all you had to be was a registered Democrat to run in a Democratic primary. Has this changed? "

Voting in them however, is another matter entirely, and that's what we're concerned with here is it not?

9/4/2006 11:49:35 AM

Not that I know of. Last I checked all you had to be to vote in the Democratic primary was to be registered as a Democrat (or even an independent in some states).

What the registration process does is self label yourself either liberal or conservative. It does not make sense to let someone vote in both primaries (being a conservative I could confound the liberal election by voting for the least liked candidate).

9/4/2006 11:31:27 PM

What'd be wrong with that?

That'd moderate the system pretty well I'd think.

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ...]

9/5/2006 4:41:50 PM

Quote :

"That'd moderate the system pretty well I'd think."

How? There is no telling how a conservative will pick a liberal. My choice, since I want a conservative to win the final election, is to choose the least moderate democrat. If we assume liberals are doing the same in republican primaries then the system should become oddly extreme (the surrest way to win your parties primary is to convince Democrats that you are un-electable).

9/5/2006 10:06:07 PM

^ Like Clinton?

Your stripes are showing with that simplification.

I question a firmly stated belief that more people will subvert the system by voting for the extremes of the two parties instead of those who more closely resemble the members of their own party. I may just not understand your explanation. What makes you think a sizeable portion of the Republican party won't just vote for a more centrist Democrat?

9/6/2006 3:43:46 PM

Well, you can assume most people are idiots and will not take advantage of "strategic voting" but I find in life it is folly to assume people stupid.

A Democrat voting in a Republican primary and voting for the moderate Republican is reducing the likelihood that a Democrat will win the November election. And since the individual in question is a Democrat it is safe to assume he would prefer a moderate Democrat win, not a moderate Republican, therefore it is in his best interest to nominate an un-electable Republican.

I am assuming that the more moderate an individual the more likely victory will be, this may not always be true but I believe most people would accept it.

That said, you may be right that the effect will be small and if that is the case then allowing people to vote in both primaries could be beneficial.

[Edited on September 6, 2006 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/6/2006 4:37:05 PM

really. who just said that a popular vote would make candidates travel the whole country. It wouldn't even begin to do that. They'd just go to NY, California, Chicago, Houston, and Atlanta and be done with it...

9/7/2006 9:12:59 PM

and......currently they fly to the battleground states.

at least one way is based on population.

9/7/2006 10:12:27 PM

I'd imagine you'd see both happening, LoneSnark. I'm not denying that what you're saying is true. It just seems to me that if it looked like Republicans were going to win the next election, you'd have a good portion of Democrats who'd decide it'd be in their best interest to participate in the primary so that they don't get a right-of-Santorum zealot.

9/8/2006 6:04:31 PM