Republicans crossing over to vote for Clinton vs. those for Obama

[jrtom]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909

Hmm. The gist of the argument appears to be that

(a) Republicans started voting in the Democratic primaries in much larger numbers after McCain secured the R nomination

(b) Rush Limbaugh has exhorted his audience to support Clinton (as a weaker opponent to McCain)

(c) exit polls suggest that Republicans voting for Clinton actually don't like her.

Now, I'd like to see stats on how much Republicans that voted for Clinton liked _Obama_...but this does seem to add up to shenanigans.

I feel as though this is all technically within the rules, but it does rather leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

Not sure how to fix this in a way that doesn't induce more problems, though. (Disallowing people from switching parties between the primary and the general election might be an interesting dodge, but there's a can of worms there, too.)

Comments

[lightning-rose.livejournal.com]

Disallowing people from switching parties between the primary and the general election might be an interesting dodge, but there's a can of worms there, too.

But this would have no effect on the general election since no one is required to vote for the candidate of their stated party.

It varies by state, but right now voters are required to register and/or declare a party affiliation n time units before their states primary. A simple solution would be to require registration 90 days before the primary, and hold all primaries (doing away with caucuses) within the first 90 days of the year.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

It actually varies quite a lot by state. Some states don't require voters to declare party affiliation in order to vote in primaries, and some hold open primaries (not quite the same thing); this solution doesn't affect either of those situations.

Not sure why you're suggesting doing away with caucuses (cauci?). How does that relate to this problem?

But this would have no effect on the general election since no one is required to vote for the candidate of their stated party.

Point. I wasn't thinking clearly.

More reasons for removing parties from explicit consideration in elections, I guess.

[lightning-rose.livejournal.com]

It actually varies quite a lot by state. Some states don't require voters to declare party affiliation in order to vote in primaries, and some hold open primaries (not quite the same thing); this solution doesn't affect either of those situations.

You're correct, I forgot about this point. Let me amend my suggestion to require party affiliation, and no open primaries.

Caucuses are a mostly separate rant, but in short they disenfranchise some voters. In most states they're held for a limited time (usually about 2 hours) in the evening, making it difficult for some people to attend.

Primaries

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

You know my opinion.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

My state allows independents to vote in either primary. I voted in the Republican one myself b/c there were two candidates I'd expatriate for (Romney and Huckabee) so I picked the one I could tolerate comparatively (McCain). I was tempted to vote for the one who I thought would be most likely to lose, but I decided I didn't know that info well enough to do so. Game-theory-ing the vote is a time honored tradition in my state.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, mine too (although we have a caucus rather than a primary).

I do believe that that's the first time I've seen "expatriate" used as a verb. :)

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Really? Huh. Main entry for the word on M-W is as a verb, and I'm sure I've used it that way multiple times.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Oh, I understand that it's a perfectly good verb. I just haven't seen it _used_ before. :)