Political Affiliations
 

I did some searching but could not find anything specific. I apologize ahead of time if this is a repost.

Anyway, it seems there is an eclectic mix of political ideologies on this board and was wondering just how many people affiliated themselves with the Democrats, the Republicans, or neither.

As for myself, I consider myself a classic conservative. A Republican in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt(hence the avatar) more than George Bush. I am pro-democracy, pro-capitalism, pro-small government, and am not a big fan of taxes. I could care less about abortion, gay marriage, and all the myriad of other things that are petty in sight of the larger issues of a slowing economy, the war on terror, and the loss of a large industrial base in America.

I'm registered Green... think Kucinich meets Gore, with a socialist mix.

We don't "register" ourselves in Canada - I find the idea of "registering" your political beliefs slightly odd, although some people do become members of parties - I get the impression it's not quite the same thing, however.

At any rate, I vote for whatever party best represents my beliefs and interests at the time of the election. Both federally and provincially over the years I have voted Liberal, Conservative and Green several times. Once, living in Quebec, I even voted for the Rhinocerous Party, a joke party that was formed to give people an option when they realized everyone else sucked.

Seconded.

Well, the only reason you register is so you can participate in the primaries of the party you register for.

thirded.
I'm registered independent. I guess my beliefs run closer to libertarian... but not enough to join the party. The party system can be a strength and a weakness. It reminds me of trade and labor unions. I'd like to see the official campaign period restricted to 90 days or less (including primaries).

Washington State has recently required that we register our party affiliation, due to a Supreme Court decision that was reviewed for another state. I hate it! We are a State that has a large contingent of Independents (at least on the West side) but now we cannot participate in the primaries unless we pick a party ahead of time. What became of our right to privacy of the vote, if we must declare a party? This makes vote tampering all the more easier imo.

That's an interesting point Elphaba. I suppose the reasoning goes that primary elections aren't for public office. But then, they shouldn't have any standing in the general election.

It's tricky, because I can see the point that the Republicans don't want Democrats voting in the Republican primaries because they might get a weak candidate nominated for the general election (or vice versa --- I actually read something about the Dems feeling that Huckabee would be a great "glass jaw" opponent). In fact, the trickiness of the situation just goes to reinforce my belief that it is our political parties that run this country, not the elected officials or the people.

P.S. Atreides, it's too bad there's no unaffiliated or independent option that doesn't include "apathetic". You want a poll edit? It's your choice.

Hmmm ... people here may join a political party, and in doing so generally become quite active, and participate in leadership elections and party caucuses.

My impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, but huge numbers of Americans are "registered" as either Democrats or Republicans, many (most?) of whom do not actively participate?

I think here relatively few people tend to tie themselves to parties, of which we have 3 "major" parties (Liberals, Conservatives, NDP), 1 major regional party (Bloc Quebecois) and 1 rapidly growing party (the Greens), whereas in the US, with only 2 parties, tens of millions want to permanently associate with one or the other and will never switch sides.

Conservative on certain issues, Liberal on others.

Libertarian

I find it funny that the number of Libertarians equal the number of GOP and Dem combined. And that's after my vote in the Big Two is included.

Sensei, I can only speak for myself but there is nothing in the poll selections that I can choose. It is missing an important part of the electorate that can change red to blue and blue to red. Independents are not so easily classified as the poll choices.

Maybe its to keep people from screwing with primaries by voting for the worst candidate on the other side.

For example I'd love every right wing voter to vote to nominate Kusinich, but only because I know he would lose the general election. That sort of tampering isn't the intent of the primary.

Edit: ah uber covered it.

The poll needs to be reworded really.

Its who you VOTE for that matters, not who you align with (aka Libertarian).

Am I supposed to be in awe of this *new* revelation, U2? Sheesh. That argument is the whole basis of the SCOTUS review of one state's voting record that got automatically extended to my state. There is no evidence that primary voting was ever manipulated in that way in Washington, but what the hey! You must now choose a political "name" for yourself and if you refuse to do so you cannot participate in the primaries. Primary games are not the issue. Forced voter identification of party is the issue.

Well I hope you can cope with it then. I don't see it as a big deal to be quite honest.

I am quite certain that you wouldn't.

Weren't you the one who was convinced that anyone would sell their vote? You're starting to paint a consistent picture, but I'm not sure it's the one you intend.

Well, I suppose an "Independent" option could be added, I have no idea how to do that. The "unregistered/apathetic" was geared towards those who were not registered to vote and/or were apathetic to the politics. Sorry for any confusion or inconvenience.

You want to vote in a party primary as an independent...... well no.

If you want to take part in the primary you should at least declare you are a member of that party. I think this is in fact a good thing as its a weakness in the whole primary system some have been talking about exploiting as of late. In 2000 for example McCain won the Michigan Republican primary as the democrats elected to not hold a primary, and based on exit poll data it were democrats who gave him the victory, democrats who had no intention of voting for him in the general election for the most part I'm sure.

There is no obligation for a party to have a primary in the first place. Its a way for their members to have a voice, in the old days this did not happen. Even today it doesn't always happen.

Honestly the primary system as a whole has issues but how a party wants to do it is up to them.

If it were for the general election, then ok I'd be all up in arms, but its not.

And what would that be will? That for enough money anyone would change their vote? True, even an idealistic kid fresh out of school would if the check were big enough. If the election comes down to one vote then he can get all remorseful. As for this issue, will you know that primaries are for the party right?

You don't seem to place a high value on a democratic vote.
Of course. I also know that they're polarization-paloozas and are entirely useless. The idea of anyone voting for reps from parties, especially third parties and indys, seems more reasonable to me. It seems stupid to, for example, be a republican, choose a republican candidate, but still be free to vote for any candidate. Does that make sense to you?

100% apathetic.

I appreciate your honesty and consistency!

Mama taught me not to lie. :thumbsup:

But seriously, I've tried getting interested in politics at one point, but nothing came out of it.