Just registered as a Democrat!
 

There is a movement in MD to register as Democrats to vote out the incumbents that are voting for gun bans in the MD senate. The purpose is only to vote in the Democratic primaries for the "other" candidate. We have several thousand people that are committed to do this. These races are frequently won by thousands if not hundreds of votes. Might not amount to anything, but I don't vote in the primary anyway being a Libertarian, so I figure it couldn't hurt!

Anyone else ever try this?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need shower!

Absolutely disgusting. No respect for democracy at all.

Often, the "other" Democratic candidate is more pro-gun control than the incumbent or mainstream one. But, assuming enough people joined your cause, you could certainly push the lesser candidate into a general election in a few instances. This is probably why MD needs to move to a nonpartisan blanket primary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonp...et_primary

Look at the bright side. Now you will have teenage hipsters knocking on your door and reminding you to vote - and you can throw them off your property.

Are you a Democrat? Then get off my property! It is a wonderful feeling. :D

Good idea. I am going to register as a Republican so that I can vote for the most conservative and misogynist Tea Party candidate in the primaries!

I wholeheartedly disagree! This is democracy in action! Make your voice heard. There is no chance of ever getting a conservative candidate in a state like MD with so many on the dole so I can't beat them. I have decided to join them. What do you see that is wrong with this? I don't see any moral problems with this at all.

I agree Your most powerful vote is with the majority party which ever side it is. Because the winner in the general is most likely going to be the majority candidate.

Sheep in Sheep's clothing.










~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is a rather harsh accusation. Care to justify it?

What the hell kind of Libertarian thinks such a "plan" matters one iota? :confused: That's the frightening thing; to think such a system can be reformed. Check that, hilarious. :lol:

sorry but i agree - i never saw the point in situations where people can change parties easily, even right up to a primary, or where anyone can vote in a primary regardless of their affiliation.

A rather sneaky underhanded unAmerican thing to do.

Good luck.

I actually do agree with you. And I resisted for a long time. But this movement actually seems to be gaining traction. This is revenge and only revenge. I will vote my conscience in the election but if I can throw a monkey wrench in the gears along the way, so be it. Actually the more I think about this, the more I think it IS a libertarian thing to do! BTW: My wife is also changing to Dem.

I am also a big believer in Jury Nullification. If I disagree with ANY law being tried while I am on a jury, I will find for the defendant, regardless of the evidence or the crime.

That's fine.

Would you admit to those views while being interviewed for jury duty?

I hope so. I also hope it isn't held against him/her (as a punishment).

I wonder if pacifism can nullify a juror.

Such a juror would never be seated

My father has been a registered Democrat for .. 40 years now (even though he's a die hard republican). Everytime I asked him why he's a registered democrat, I get the same answer. "Because they won't see me coming". I don't think he votes in the primaries though..

Someone who doesn't believe in "guilty" verdicts? Judges have been known to punish jurors who make such statements.

What about pacifism?

If the democrats winning the general election is a foregone conclusion, the only way to have your voice heard is in the primary. You are doing the right thing if this is the case.

The Democrats use dead people, fraudulent multiple voting, and oppose voter ID laws so that illegals and others can vote. They will bus total vegetables and illiterate people out and do all but push the button/fill in the bubble for them. This is what our "democracy" has become.

Our two-party system really limits competition. If you are stuck in a state of the opposing "color" (red/blue), then people are resorting to things like this. It happens both ways (Dems registering as Reps and vice versa). In some states, Dems can vote in Rep primaries and do so to sway the election much like the OP.

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.

Not exactly. In cases where one party has a lock on power then the primary becomes the only race that maters. For example, if you live in a town that will always vote purple and you are a registered green then a vote for the green representative is a vote that will go nowhere. However, if you sign up for the purple party then you at least have a chance to decide which of the two purple candidates you would prefer. Also, this might reduce the oft cited issue where candidates try to be the most purple or the most green during the primaries to win the vote of the party faithful but then are forced to be centrist to get cross over voters.

Years back I did this to get an embarrassment of a congress critter out of office. I think the critter was going to lose anyway after a national level embarrassment but just in case I voted in the election that decided the new critter vs the one that would decide the runner up.

Operation Chaos [wikipedia.org]

You're simply justifying the lie as a practical necessity. I already understand that it is sometimes easier to lie than to achieve results through honest action.

To my mind, the correct course of action is to persuade and influence to the best of one's ability, rather than try to monkey-wrench the democratic process through misrepresentation of oneself and one's affiliation.

If the voters are not honest, I hardly think they have room to complain about politicians that say one thing and then do another. After all, that's the practical solution to gaining power and influence.

I see no reason why it is a lie. It has real limitations as well. For example, if I want to vote in the purple presidential primary but I care about my local sheriff's election. The sheriff's office will always go to the green party in this county. Well in some states you can not vote in both primaries thus you are forced to chose which election is more important to you. I find that to be a big problem. So long as we are forced to pick one primary or the other then I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't be able to switch over and vote in the election that maters. To say I can't is to disenfranchise my vote. BTW, you understand this isn't something that would happen in anything but extreme circumstances where one party has a monopoly on office. Take the 2016 Presidential election. Both parties have to run a new candidates. We can assume that it will probably be reasonable close in November and if we assume each party has say 2 front runners for the party then it would be dumb to cross over since voters for each party are going to be very concerned about their own party's nominee. A vote spent trying to get the less desirable green candidate means no opportunity for pick the "best" purple guy. On the other hand, if you know green will win a congressional seat even if green runs an idiot then it's in your own best interest to vote in the green primary for the best candidate since that candidate will be your congress critter even if you are a life long purple.

Nothing dishonest about it. It's a reflection of the realities of a flawed system.

Look, it's pretty simple. If you declare yourself a Democrat, yet do not share the broad values of the platform, you are not, in truth, a Democrat.

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. You're not going to be prosecuted, but you've certainly been dishonest.

You might feel that dishonesty is the best way to get what you want in this particular circumstance. And it may be that this is true. We must each decide the price of our integrity.

Now they will let you vote twice.

I wish you could insert hysterical laughing. I can't see how you can say that, a bit hypocritical isn't it?

Ha ha ha! I just got 8 more people to switch! And all 8 vowed to spread the word to others. I really think we can exercise our rights and upset the apple cart and spoil some of the entrenched incumbents! I am very happy at how this strategy is working out. 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. I don't see any reason to ever register under anything other than your enemy's party. I look forward to the Democrat primaries!

And just as the cherry on the top, I am having SO much fun telling my Democrat "acquaintances" about the plan. I haven't felt this good about something in a long time.

WOO HOO!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

That's funny.

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?


The OP specifically was doing that.

:lmao::lol::lmao:

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

Do you want Democrats picking the Republican candidate?

What goes around, comes 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!

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.

You glaringly point out what is wrong with our government; there is more then Ds and Rs! Where did I ever say that I was R? I am not. I also suggested that the Ds do the same as I am doing should the shoe be on the other foot. The only hope this country has is to break the 2 party system. In other words, we have no hope. So at least I can make a difference at a local level. Why should I, a part of the 1%ers who actually contributes to this country's income pool, not have a voice?

We'd all be better off if the republicans picked the democratic primary winners and vice versa. We'd be able to get rid of the extremes on both sides.

My purpose would be to elect the candidate that most closely represents my views.

I don't mind casting my third party votes in the big races. For the house of representatives, I will game the shit out of my vote to maximize my impact. You are a pragmatist, right?

If I have the choice of either voting in the primary of the presumptive winning party and getting a guy with one more opinion on a major closer to mine, not voting in that primary (and others like me don't vote) and getting a guy with one less opinion on a major that I agree with representing me I'll vote in the primary of whatever party I think is going to win.

I don't think political party labels are extremely meaningful. Unfortunately, our system often requires us to pick one or the other (and not some third party) to have our voice heard in government.

Then take your money and support third party candidates. That's what is missing - the financial backing. Corporations and people throw their money towards a candidate they think can win. You can start with local elections where you have the best chance of success. I've voted for democrats, republicans, independents, and one guy from the green party (he was local, I knew him and supported most of his platform).

Messing with a party's platform and primaries for your own agenda only gives weaker candidates in the long run.

I support the Libertarian party. Both financially and with my vote. This will not affect that. The Libertarian party does not hold a primary.

Where did I say you are an R? I did not.

But you did say you have no voice cause the D always wins, so unless your district is very unusual, you won't have voice when the R wins either.

You have no hope as long as your actions subvert the system rather than convince others to agree with and vote for your policies.

If you're part of the 1%, you actually have much more of voice, if you choose to use your excess wealth to influence your fellow voters. As it is now, your voice is just not the majorities'.

Nothing wrong with voting in the other guy's primary. Some states have a jungle primary in any case.

Indeed, California just set up a top 2 system that simply shuts the Republican party out of many congressional districts, and 2 Democrats appear on the November ballot.

As a result, those 2 Democrats have to compete for the 40% of the electorate that is Republican by distancing themselves from San Francisco extremists like Pelosi.

"When the R wins"? I think you entirely are missing the point as to why this is an effective way to be heard. And with it being explained a dozen different ways in this thread and you still break it down into "D vs R" I fear you will never understand. This is unfortunate since you could also take advantage of this tactic.

"Excess wealth" - HA! Good one! I am part of the 1% due to income, not due to wealth. You are equating wealth with income. I live in one of the "richest" counties in the country. That doesn't mean I live any better then anyone else does. We have 4 people living on my income. Try living on slightly over $100k with a close to $600k mortgage and all the other usual household and family expense. I guess I could move to a cheaper part of the nation with lower salaries but it is all relative.

Without MSM support, there is NO chance of ever becoming anything more then a 2 party nation headed towards the sewer. Do you have any idea at all what it costs to advertise? Ron Paul had a very good chance of getting the Republican nomination accept the media chose to minimize him. He had more support then any other candidate but was ignored and minimized to the point where in the end he was marginalized and forgotten.

And if Ross Perot could not form a viable 3rd party with his billions, how does anyone else stand a chance? You need to be a bit more realistic.

Im so confused.. Only 1.4 million americans make up the top 1% in terms of yearly income. AGI for top 1% is $376,000. adjusted gross income is after all regular deductions (basically head of household, children, and IRA). So your income is closer to like $400,000 at least if youre in the top 1%.

those with $400,000 typically have a lot of stock options and people doing investments for them, so their wealth is not limited strictly to a paycheck type "income" either.

Sorry to burst your bubble but youre nowhere near the top 1% unfortunately, top 10%?.... possibly.

lol - you are correct I just looked it up. I thought the Democrats referred to anyone that paid a positive amount of taxes as the "top 1%". According to what I found, I am actually in the "top 5%".

Did you read what I wrote? "Unless you live in a very unusual district...." either the D or the R will win.

If you think subverting the Dem Party will advance the cause of Libertarians, I highly doubt that.

If you're only making $100K, you're not 1%. That takes more than $300K.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who...taxes.html

Chances are you are barely in the top 10%

I live in Baltimore City AND I am a registered Republican. I figure it's the easiest way to get out of jury duty, or can I register Democrat and still be (essentially) exempt from jury duty because I am white?

Oh we definitely need you to register Democrat! Make sure you are on mdshooters.com.

To quote Hillary Clinton (on Benghazi):
“At this point, what difference does it make?”

According to the below adjusted for my area I am top 29%, nationwide, top 12%. See so I need more tax breaks! When my wife returns to work we will be 11/4.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactiv...t-map.html

The difference, according to Lindsey Graham, is whether Obama displayed any curiosity about what was happening.....

In that case, he didn't, because he didn't even make any phone calls related to Benghazi that night. Was probably too busy watching a basketball game or something.

This is very common in states dominated by one party, where the primary is basically the real election. Explain the fairness in not allowing everyone to vote in that situation?

Last time I remember this happening was when a whole lot of people were switching to the Rep side to vote for McCain in the primaries over Bush.

Republicans continue to try to circumvent democracy because they can't stand on their own merit. In fact, they have no merit. They probably don't even understand the concept of merit. Moreover, they seem to be incapable of understanding most any concept that takes minimal cognitive skills. They do understand fear and hate, although these concepts only dig them deeper into the abyss. But alas, they don't know what an abyss is either.

Once you stop making everything about left vs right you will realize how much of a scam the election system really is. Parties are irrelevant.

Thanks for giving me another reason to do this; because it pisses off liberals!

Well over 70% of scientists and PhDs vote democrat. It's not that your ilk pisses us off, it's more that we feel pity for your inability to see the light. Your sort is why there is so much dysfunction within government. You simply can't understand basic intellectual principles, and then vote accordingly.

It's very frustrating for the remaining 30% of PhDs to watch the other 70% not vote libertarian :P

And people wonder where the "arrogant" and "elitist" labels for the left come from.....

It's an unfortunate consequence of stupid people being told they're stupid.

And where are a majority of them are employed ??

I guess that sums it up. Whomever disagrees with you, is stupid. Got it.

What?

Finally, you did get something right.