How can Washington state pass a law requiring me to vote for only one party's candidates? Then they have the gaul to say even if I disagree with this law (which says my vote won't count if I don't follow their jacka$$ law) I need to vote because of non-partisan issues.? WHo's frickin idea was this mess!?
2006-09-14 02:43:59 · 9 answers · asked by Jen J 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
wlvrne: Too bad the D's & R's don't have more faith in their power. Staying blind to the truth doesn't change the truth, just delays it's revelation.
2006-09-14 03:08:16 · update #1
Election laws and methods in our country are in disarray with partisans in charge of how votes are cast, counted and certified. This is a problem for all -- depending on who is in power: Dem. Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago or Rep. Secretary of State Katherine Harris in Florida.
My state opened primaries to all voters one year a few years ago. It seemed like a good idea on the surface. In reality, it provided opportunities for opposition party mischief -- voters cast votes for the least viable candidate undermining party preferences. It was easier to track in local election. The state went back to closed primaries.
In primary elections and general elections, evoting machines are not secure and can be hacked. We have spent billions imposing democratic elections on people thousands of miles away, yet our own election system stinks. Can't we get anything right!
2006-09-14 03:48:48 · answer #1 · answered by murphy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Laws have always over ruled the vote, look at the 2000 election and ask does your vote count.
2006-09-14 10:49:28 · answer #2 · answered by edubya 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In Oregon, independent voters like me cannot vote in the open primaries, but must wait until election time.
I think independents should be able to vote in the primaries.
These "laws" are in place to give advantage to the two main parties, republican & democrat; and, neither wants an outside threat to their status quo.
2006-09-14 09:53:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In case of a possible alternative to the government/regime, one should go for it, and then, when masses vote for the alternative, it would come to power. In 1996, for example, one could have voted for Ross Perot. In 2004 one could have voted for Ralph Nader.
2006-09-14 11:53:46 · answer #4 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do any of you people understand what primaries are for?? They are one group of people (a political party) to pick who gets to represent them in a particular election. If you're not a member of that group of people why do you think you should be allowed to vote for who represents them?
In general elections, when people vote for who gets put into office, you can vote for anyone you want.
Uneducated voters make uninformed votes.
2006-09-14 11:29:56 · answer #5 · answered by Fire_God_69 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why would you want to pick a candidate for a party of which you're not a member?
The parties have the right to choose their own candidates and as such it makes sense to restrict such votes to registered party members.
2006-09-14 11:13:57 · answer #6 · answered by Morgy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I hear ya. We should all move to instant run-off voting. That way its all fair. And seriously why does the government have such a problem with giving us more democracy?
2006-09-14 09:51:54 · answer #7 · answered by quickblur 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
if this is true you guys there need to work and change this law . your vote count
2006-09-14 11:06:54 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Vote democrat u wan.kers!
2006-09-16 03:47:33 · answer #9 · answered by PIMP_DADDY 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋