Just registered as a Democrat!

Quote from dealgate : As a Conservative, I have NO voice right now.

You have a voice. It's just in the minority.

Do you want Democrats picking the Republican candidate?

What goes around, comes around.

Quote from onscreen : So it's OK for an independent to change but not other voters? Someone who is normally D can't vote R or the other way around?

Not sure how this follows in the conversation. Look, it's dead simple, if you have to lie to gain access to a closed primary, you are being dishonest. If you have to say that you are or believe something that you are not or do not believe, then you are being dishonest.

Quote from dealgate : 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.

Well, it's a free country and you are allowed to change your party affiliation as much as you like. In our state you can't vote in the primary if you are an independent. You must register as a republican, third party, or a democrat. I usually favor one side but I like to choose who I think will be the best person for the job. I have switched between republican and democrat a few times in order to vote in the primary. But then my intention was honest - I was picking the best candidate - not undermining the process for my opposition. Legally, I think you are in the clear. Morally, I think you may be subverting the integrity of the democratic process. If everyone followed your rules, we won't be choosing the best candidate from our own party (in the primary) but the worst candidate on the opposing side.

Quote from StarNova : Well, it's a free country and you are allowed to change your party affiliation as much as you like. In our state you can't vote in the primary if you are an independent. You must register as a republican, third party, or a democrat. I usually favor one side but I like to choose who I think will be the best person for the job. I have switched between republican and democrat a few times in order to vote in the primary. But then my intention was honest - I was picking the best candidate - not undermining the process for my opposition. Legally, I think you are in the clear. Morally, I think you may be subverting the integrity of the democratic process. If everyone followed your rules, we won't be choosing the best candidate from our own party (in the primary) but the worst candidate on the opposing side.

Exactly.

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

Let's say someone is a libertarian. Is it dishonest to register for the primary of the party you think is most likely to win, and vote for the one you think will protect your liberties the best?

Do democrats and libertarians not share many interests?

If one supports gay rights, gun rights, abortion rights, etc. Who's to say they aren't democrat enough?

Quote from Xygonn : Let's say someone is a libertarian. Is it dishonest to register for the primary of the party you think is most likely to win, and vote for the one you think will protect your liberties the best? Do democrats and libertarians not share many interests? If one supports gay rights, gun rights, abortion rights, etc. Who's to say they aren't democrat enough?

Is your purpose to pick the best candidate? Or to sabotage the Party with which you disagree?

Quote from Xygonn : Let's say someone is a libertarian. Is it dishonest to register for the primary of the party you think is most likely to win, and vote for the one you think will protect your liberties the best? Do democrats and libertarians not share many interests? If one supports gay rights, gun rights, abortion rights, etc. Who's to say they aren't democrat enough?

Your stated scenario is way different than the OP's.

Registering as a Dem in order to vote for candidate A in the primary and if he wins also vote for that candidate in the general election is vastly different and vastly less dishonest IMO than voting for candidate A in the primary knowing that there is no way you would for him in the general election.

Quote from Xygonn : Let's say someone is a libertarian. Is it dishonest to register for the primary of the party you think is most likely to win, and vote for the one you think will protect your liberties the best? Do democrats and libertarians not share many interests? If one supports gay rights, gun rights, abortion rights, etc. Who's to say they aren't democrat enough?

If you don't actually self-identify as X, it's dishonest to claim to be X. Whether or not someone has to be dishonest to gain access to a primary depends upon how the primary is structured. If it's strictly a closed primary, it would be dishonest for a non party member to claim to affiliate with the party solely for the purpose of accessing the primary.

At the same time, I appreciate that this action is not malicious. It's a person voting for the candidate that he or she prefers rather than trying to sabotage some other party's primary process and actually reduce the availability of good candidates.

When I vote, I vote in the way I believe benefits the country most, not any single particular candidate. If that means voting for a candidate whom I do not believe to be most qualified, so be it. Your morality in this respect, Skiman, seems strange and impractical.

Am I dishonest because I occasionally vote for a candidate I completely disagree with because I truly believe that the worst imaginable outcome for any given election is for either party to have decisive control of the government?

Another example: I believe most Republicans want to lower taxes for selfish and personal reasons, but I often vote Republican because I believe that this course of action is good for the country. I don't at all agree with the candidate, but I do trust them to do what's good for themselves and in so doing, help the country. Is this dishonest of me?

I also believe that most Democrats wish to enact immigration reform to buy themselves and their party votes for the foreseeable future. I have not had the opportunity to vote for a Democrat for this reason, but I would not hesitate to do so should one present itself, despite the fact that I disagree vehemently with the candidate even on the issue that compels me to vote for him! Does this make me dishonest?

The bottom line is that we cannot trust politicians, but we CAN work within the system to achieve a desired result. It seems as if you don't have a lot of respect for the 2-party system, but in reality actions like this highlight some of the more glaring deficiencies in the RvD paradigm, and you denounce them. This doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from Notquiteclapton : When I vote, I vote in the way I believe benefits the country most, not any single particular candidate. If that means voting for a candidate whom I do not believe to be most qualified, so be it. Your morality in this respect, Skiman, seems strange and impractical. Am I dishonest because I occasionally vote for a candidate I completely disagree with because I truly believe that the worst imaginable outcome for any given election is for either party to have decisive control of the government? Another example: I believe most Republicans want to lower taxes for selfish and personal reasons, but I often vote Republican because I believe that this course of action is good for the country. I don't at all agree with the candidate, but I do trust them to do what's good for themselves and in so doing, help the country. Is this dishonest of me? I also believe that most Democrats wish to enact immigration reform to buy themselves and their party votes for the foreseeable future. I have not had the opportunity to vote for a Democrat for this reason, but I would not hesitate to do so should one present itself, despite the fact that I disagree vehemently with the candidate even on the issue that compels me to vote for him! Does this make me dishonest? The bottom line is that we cannot trust politicians, but we CAN work within the system to achieve a desired result. It seems as if you don't have a lot of respect for the 2-party system, but in reality actions like this highlight some of the more glaring deficiencies in the RvD paradigm, and you denounce them. This doesn't make sense to me.

Again, you would be dishonest if you claimed to identify as a member of a party with which you do not, in truth, identify. Particularly to access a closed primary. It's simply and fundamentally dishonest to represent yourself as one thing, when you know yourself to be another.

You would be dishonest and maliciously undemocratic if your objective was to spike that party's primary. It means you are working to deprive voters of a choice between the best candidates available, and the best ideas available. It means you've put "winning" and the ascendance of your preferred ideas above the opportunity for the people to govern themselves by participating in an open marketplace of ideas.

I don't like the two party system, but the correct course of action is to persuade other people to share my views based on the merit of the argument. I should persuade them that an alternative option is better, rather than destructively trying to make the existing system so shitty that I might seem right.

All this time I've thought you were joining us from Canada. Not true?

Quote from skiman : the correct course of action is to persuade other people to share my views based on the merit of the argument.

Over the long haul, yes. In the short term, no.

What the OP did was 100% legal and totally ethical.

Quote from onscreen : Over the long haul, yes. In the short term, no. What the OP did was 100% legal and totally ethical.

Then what is the objective over the short term?

Quote from skiman : Again, you would be dishonest if you claimed to identify as a member of a party with which you do not, in truth, identify. Particularly to access a closed primary. It's simply and fundamentally dishonest to represent yourself as one thing, when you know yourself to be another. You would be dishonest and maliciously undemocratic if your objective was to spike that party's primary. It means you are working to deprive voters of a choice between the best candidates available, and the best ideas available. It means you've put "winning" and the ascendance of your preferred ideas above the opportunity for the people to govern themselves by participating in an open marketplace of ideas. I don't like the two party system, but the correct course of action is to persuade other people to share my views based on the merit of the argument. I should persuade them that an alternative option is better, rather than destructively trying to make the existing system so shitty that I might seem right. All this time I've thought you were joining us from Canada. Not true?

I suppose the only difference is that I see the malice here to be directed clearly at one of the 2 major parties and the spillover from "maliciously unDemocratic (the party)" to "maliciously undemocratic (the system of government)" to be minimal. It's a clever ploy to exploit a flawed system, and the more prevalent it becomes, the more it weakens the 2-party system in general, and for all the right reasons!

This is doubly true because one of the greatest tragedies of the 2 party system is that the average voter sympathizes with one of the parties and gives them his allegiance for no particularly good or well thought out reason. In this case, someone is joining a party for a very well thought out reason and then subverting that party. This is exactly what the country needs: informed and proactive activism! The less that members of the parties are required (or expected) to agree completely on all issues and vote in unison, the stronger democracy becomes. Of course, these cross party voters aren't legitimately dissenting, but realistically, a vote is a vote. Anger at registered Democrats who don't vote Democrat is not substantially different than the ludicrous, self-entitled anger at "blue dogs" or "RINOS".

I lived in Toronto for a few years, but I'm back in the states. I had no idea anyone was paying that much attention!

Quote from CyberGuy : Then what is the objective over the short term?

In my case the objective was to vote out a congress critter who embarrassed the country in a very public way. I decide my green party wasn't going to get the seat but I might be able to pick the purple candidate I would prefer. Realistically my choice wasn't Green or Purple but Purple 1 or Purple 2. I decided I would pick #1 because it was better than #2. Over the long term it wasn't what Purple 2 stood for that bothered me (though I preferred the stated policies of Green). It was what P2 did that made me think P2 was unfit for office.

P2 was voted out and then complained that it was cross over voters who made the difference. Well that probably wasn't true given how badly P2 screwed up but I was happy to do my duty to help.