Just registered as a Democrat!

Quote from skiman : Rather like claiming to be of a certain faith or belief if one thinks that it will improves the odds of landing the churchy girl down the street.

It's like a group of people who all join a small church en masse, use their numbers to elect themselves to the church's board, and then give themselves the church's assets.

If you want to run in a general election as a Libertarian, then that's what you should run as. It's just that simple. And if the majority of voters don't want to vote Libertarian, you should have respect for that.

If the Libertarians want to get somewhere, they need to realize that Rand Paul is a flipping nut job. Seriously, Libertarian candidates repeatedly make fairly outrageous statements which frighten most Americans, such as calling for the elimination of the IRS. I thought that Rand Paul's attacks on Hilary Clinton were a joke - I mean, you compare the eight years of George W. Bush foreign policy nightmares to the four years of Obama's successes, and then demand that the Secretary of State should be fired because she didn't read every message from all the embassies... it's absurd.

Tomorrow morning, when I wake up, I want to get my kids dressed, send them off to school, and drive to work. I can do that whether a Republican or Democrat runs the government. But if a Libertarian runs the government, and the guy keeps shooting off his mouth about eliminating public education and public roads, then I don't know if I can send my kids off to school or drive to work. I don't view the Libertarian Party as being grounded in any sort of reality, despite the many good ideas and valid points they may have. Until these guys can plant their feet on the ground, their candidates aren't going anywhere.

Quote from onscreen : I don't see it as any issue of integrity. Perhaps if the parties were 100% faithful to their platforms and perhaps if 100% of the party members were in alignment with a platform that would be one thing. No one is 100% in alignment so that's not a fair reason to avoid the election. Furthermore, if you are say a Republican leaning voters in San Fransisco should you be forced to give up your voice with respect to your congressional representative because the Republican just isn't going to win in that town? Should the reverse be true if you are a liberal leaning voter in a red district? If we had a mass election followed by runoff elections as in other countries (not advocating a switch, just saying) then I could see anger at such activities. However in this case the system is stacked against some people due to the party structure of our voting system. So long as it exists we should be able to do what is needed to work in that system (so long as it's legal). How would this be different than say refusing to vote the party ticket? Certainly some will vote green for president and purple for congress in the same election.

You do have a voice in the election. You have a vote to cast. As does anyone else in that scenario. Your complaint, more accurately, that you want more influence. You want more than to cast a vote for the candidate you prefer, you also want to cast a vote to shape the other party's primary, even if it means pretending to subscribe to that party platform. You are, apparently, willing to be dishonest to achieve this influence.

It is what it is. No sense pretending it's not dishonest. You just happen to think the dishonesty is worthwhile.

I'm just always a little disappointed that people are willing to resort to dishonesty if it helps achieve the results they prefer, when most people will also say that this is not a behavior they want in their representatives. Another way we get the representatives we deserve.

Quote from skiman : In other words, if one cannot get one's way honestly, one should be willing to lie. After all, having one's way is the most important thing. Far more important than personal integrity.

What makes you think I support what is being done in any of the discussed examples?

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : What makes you think I support what is being done in any of the discussed examples?

It certainly reads as if you are rationalizing the behavior.

Quote from skiman : You do have a voice in the election. You have a vote to cast. As does anyone else in that scenario. Your complaint, more accurately, that you want more influence. You want more than to cast a vote for the candidate you prefer, you also want to cast a vote to shape the other party's primary, even if it means pretending to subscribe to that party platform. You are, apparently, willing to be dishonest to achieve this influence. It is what it is. No sense pretending it's not dishonest. You just happen to think the dishonesty is worthwhile. I'm just always a little disappointed that people are willing to resort to dishonesty if it helps achieve the results they prefer, when most people will also say that this is not a behavior they want in their representatives. Another way we get the representatives we deserve.

Well, you haven't convinced me at all. If it was immoral or dishonest perhaps we should have a law against it. In my case I wanted to vote a specific critter out of office so I switched parties even though it meant I couldn't vote in other primaries I cared about. I would encourage ANYONE in a similar situation, purple or green, to do the same thing.

Quote from onscreen : Well, you haven't convinced me at all. If it was immoral or dishonest perhaps we should have a law against it.

I don't care for party politics or the party system at all, so I'd prefer that it not become further entrenched.

To me it seems obvious that the correct path here is to persuade and convince people that one candidate, party, philosophy or course of action is preferable to others. Rather than encouraging people to sabotage the party-making efforts of other people in their communities, I'd encourage them to register as independents. It would seem to me that the point of democracy is to make the argument on merit, rather than farking up competing people in the hopes that one's idea will "win" by forfeit. The latter is the source of all we bemoan about our political system, from dishonest politicians to unsubstantiated smear campaigns. A healthy democracy starts with an earnest population. If we "the people" want something better than we have, it should start with the people.

Frankly, I'm unsure how anyone can claim that the dishonesty of the action is even in dispute. It is, quite plainly, dishonest to claim to be or believe one thing, while being or believing another. If that is really in dispute, I don't suppose there is much to debate.

Quote from skiman : I don't care for party politics or the party system at all, so I'd prefer that it not become further entrenched. To me it seems obvious that the correct path here is to persuade and convince people that one candidate, party, philosophy or course of action is preferable to others. Rather than encouraging people to sabotage the party-making efforts of other people in their communities, I'd encourage them to register as independents. It would seem to me that the point of democracy is to make the argument on merit, rather than farking up competing people in the hopes that one's idea will "win" by forfeit. The latter is the source of all we bemoan about our political system, from dishonest politicians to unsubstantiated smear campaigns. A healthy democracy starts with an earnest population. If we "the people" want something better than we have, it should start with the people. Frankly, I'm unsure how anyone can claim that the dishonesty of the action is even in dispute. It is, quite plainly, dishonest to claim to be or believe one thing, while being or believing another. If that is really in dispute, I don't suppose there is much to debate.

Do you claim to believe in 100% of what ever party you normally vote with? Don't you normally vote with the party that best reflects your views AND based on your thought the person is likely to win? Don't we often hear voters talking about voting for Clinton instead of Obama or Romney instead of who ever because they think X is more likely to win even though they prefer Y? How is this different?

So how can even a left leaning Republican, say someone who would honestly do a good job representing San Fransisco, have a chance to win a congressional seat vs a Democrat no mater how bad in that city? I'm sure there are plenty of places where the reverse is also true. So long as the name maters like it does this sort of thing will happen. If it's going to happen then there is no reason why a voters shouldn't be able to make their votes count by voting in the primary that maters.

Quote from dealgate : If we can even get one incumbent thrown out of office it will scare the rest into considering the desires of the disenfranchised not-so-left voters.

Since when is being in the political minority "disenfranchised."

You get your vote; just on the losing side.

Apparently you don't know what the word means.

Quote from onscreen : Should the reverse be true if you are a liberal leaning voter in a red district?

For many years I voted on the losing side in a red district.

Last year, the Democrat was finally elected.

You should work to change peoples' minds, not pull tricks.

Quote from 124nic8 : For many years I voted on the losing side in a red district. Last year, the Democrat was finally elected. You should work to change peoples' minds, not pull tricks.

I will not discuss this topic nor any other non-arms related topic with you.

Quote from onscreen : I will not discuss this topic nor any other non-arms related topic with you.

I understand....too much of a challenge....

Quote from onscreen : Do you claim to believe in 100% of what ever party you normally vote with?

I'm a registered independent, but I don't think that any significant body of people is in unanimous agreement on all issues.

Quote from onscreen : Don't you normally vote with the party that best reflects your views AND based on your thought the person is likely to win? Don't we often hear voters talking about voting for Clinton instead of Obama or Romney instead of who ever because they think X is more likely to win even though they prefer Y? How is this different?

It's different in that voting for the candidate you think can deliver the most of what you want is an honest vote. One doesn't have to lie or misrepresent oneself to vote one's self interest.

Pretending to "join" a party to get into and mess with the closed primary of one's ideological competitors is plainly dishonest. I mean, the entire act is facilitated by claiming to be something you are not.

Quote from onscreen : So how can even a left leaning Republican, say someone who would honestly do a good job representing San Fransisco, have a chance to win a congressional seat vs a Democrat no mater how bad in that city?

Convince people- make the argument- that he or she is the better candidate. It's that simple.

The virtue of a democratic society is the contest of ideas. For anyone who truly believes in this model, the answer to your question should never be to sabotage the other standard bearers.

Make the argument and convince your peers, rather than trying to fark up the "other guy's" primary. If you can't convince your peers, kindly refrain from derailing their voting process. Build a faster car rather than putting sugar in your opponent's gas tank.

Contrary to the popular aphorism, cheaters, as individuals, do sometimes win. When that happens, it's the rest of us that suffer the loss. We're left with a system we can't respect. It's one of those situations in which a person has to decide whether to be part of the solution or part of the problem.

There is nothing dishonest about it at all. We want to scare and threaten the incumbent into not supporting gun control bills. If the "other" Democrat candidate in the district has better views on gun laws, short of voting a Conservative into office who will follow the Constitution which will never happen, then I want the lesser of 2 evils in office. We will even lobby the other candidate to go on record thinking the way we do on gunlaws if we give them our support.

As a Conservative, I have NO voice right now. As a Democrat voting in the primary, I do.

And of course I will vote Conservative in the general election as I always do. There is always a chance that can effect the Democratic candidate enough to nominate someone unelectable, then that is a huge win for Conservatives.

Quote from onscreen : I will not discuss this topic nor any other non-arms related topic with you.

That's funny.