Democracy Lost?

[Dante]

This isn't a political thread, so don't take it there, its a personal story of disappointment and concern and I was wondering if other people had tried the same thing and were equally disappointed.

Because of my recent move, I had to go and re-register to vote. I decided that because I was now a grad student living on my own, I wanted to take a slightly more radical stance while I was still young and take a political party outside the standard Republican or Democratic variety (I wanted to make a serious statement).

NOTE: I still chose one of the standard political parties that are VERY common in the world, the predominant one throughout Europe in fact to give some of you an idea.

However, when I tried to do this, I was told that, despite having a write in box and not a check box, if I were to write in a political party that wasn't "Democrat", "Republican" or "Independent" (AND ONLY THOSE THREE CHOICES), my voter registration would be torn in half and I would not be allowed the right to vote. I was very disappointed and felt lied to for all the years that I was told that in America I had the RIGHT to vote for WHOEVER I wanted in whatever PARTY I wanted to... Now I find that I can ONLY vote for WHOEVER the standard wants me to and WHATEVER parties they allow. That is a VERY major restriction from the prior belief, and I suppose I would have lived in bliss unless I actually TRIED to register such a thing.

Needless to say, I'm very disappointed, and my desire to go out and vote for my two choices that I am fed feels watered down. I don't consider my political decisions to be jokes and I don't like it when someone else considers my political orientation a joke, especially when its an internationally recognized political orientation, its just small here in the United States. Anyone tried this and been told they're not allowed to vote if they dare?

-Pascal

[EricTheFred]

I will avoid making this political (although it is) and just say, as a fellow third-party member (a different one than yours, since mine is prevalent nowhere but the US to my knowledge), welcome to the land of the Two Party System. It is so well-engrained in our government workings that one would think the parties had been established in the Constitution itself. Many people truly seem to believe it's a necessary part of the workings of our government.

I don't know if the policy you describe is deliberate (a means to keep 'third' parties out of power) or just typical government cluelessness, but either way, it is an embarrassment that such a policy even exists.

In my state, we don't register as a particular party, a policy I strongly approve. Instead, party affiliation is established by participating in a particular party's primary or caucus. An 'Independent' is simply a person whose voter registration card is never stamped 'participated in the (x) primary' (or caucus) to prevent them from voting in more than one. (One receives a new card before time for the next primary.) I wish all states worked this way. It makes good sense, to my mind, to let someone wait until the time they vote to make their decision.

[Puguni]

Whaaaaaaat? How is that even possible? If that were true, how can other parties even exist, i.e. Constitution Party?

It is an EXPLICIT Constitutional right; absolutely NO ONE has the right to take that away from you in America. It's downright illegal.

I'm more surprised that you haven't made more of a fuss about it. It's ridiculous.

[Technomancer]

Because of my recent move, I had to go and re-register to vote. I decided that because I was now a grad student living on my own, I wanted to take a slightly more radical stance while I was still young and take a political party outside the standard Republican or Democratic variety (I wanted to make a serious statement).

I find it very strange, but I suspect that it's also a product of your country's oddball primary system. While being registered as one of the three, you aren't barred from voting for someone else, but I imagine it would keep track of your potential eligibility to participate in certain events organized by the two main parties. That said, I'm still surprised that they would flat out require you to state that information.

[LadyRushia]

That's really dumb. Yet another reason why I don't care about politics. I don't know what I'll do when I register to vote; I don't really like the choices we have right now.

I think you should bring it up to someone in authority. That or I guess they need to change what we learn in school. -_-

[Dante]

Alright... Just called the election office... and now I'm utterly confused... they say that it WON'T be destroyed and that my card would just come in with the word "other" on it unless its an officially recognized party, such as the Green Party or one of their other recognized parties... whether or not I can believe that I cannot say, but by now for Democracie's sake, I am now fully interested and perhaps I should try this registration AGAIN... if they tear it in half, then that means that I wouldn't want to vote anyways in this whole shmeal, but now I feel more encouraged then ever...

Hopefully spreading false information from bad sources
Pascal

[uc pseudonym]

The only reason they make you list a party during voter registration is that you can only participate in the primaries or caucuses of one party. Given that third parties do not really have a nomination process, they really don't need to organize their voters or be listed on a formal registration.

So list yourself as Independent (or something else, if the election office people are correct) and then vote for whoever you want. How you register is no limitation on who you vote for in an actual election - democracy and all that.

[SailorDove]

FYI Republic vs. Democracy:

The founding fathers established the USA government as a Republic not a Democracy. The terms are unfortunately mistaken to mean the same thing, but their meanings are quite the opposites.

From an article by Rep. Ron Paul, MD ...Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere.

James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights.

Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

For full article: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Police%20State/democracy_is_not_freedom.htm

[Dante]

Sailor Dove:

Its true and I've recognized that we are a Republic for a long time, but most people don't recognize that and have come to conclude that what is really a Republic is called a Democracy in the US in almost all situations. Although... I have to say that is an interesting root source to use .

[LadyRushia]

That website tells me I'm evil for listening to rock music and that public school has brainwashed me into a mindless atheist, lol.

[creed4]

If you arn't allowed to vote in the general election then that would be unconstitutional. I can see you not being allow to vote in a caucus

[Puguni]

If you arn't allowed to vote in the general election then that would be unconstitutional. I can see you not being allow to vote in a caucus

Of course; caucuses are run differently in every state, but they won't threaten to rip one's voter registration in half and deny someone the right to vote.

I'm just a little alarmed by the overall complacency of the posters here, as if everyone's unalienable right to vote gets threatened regularly. Anyone even a little outraged?

[Dante]

Well so far, it seems as though this may have been bad info (in which case I need to apologize) but it came from a source that should have known better (the political headquarters of a certain political party that by now have really made me a little agitated) I mean, if they do rip 'em in half then that means that the state lied to me because I received the following:

I don't know where you went to register to vote, but you were given the
wrong information. You may register with any political party
affiliation or with no party affiliation (some people call this
Independent). The choice is yours. Currently Arizona has four
recognized political parties - Democrat, Republican, Green Party and
Libertarian. This means that people who register with their party
affiliation with these four political parties are restricted to voting
these political party ballots at a partisan primary election.

If you register with a non-recognized political party or without any
party affiliation you are allowed to select one of the four recognized
political party ballots at a state and county primary election such as
the upcoming September 2, 2008 Primary Election. Please note the voter
registration for the September 2nd Primary Election has passed. It was
August 4, 2008.

Arizona state law does restrict voters voting in the Presidential
Preference Primary Election to registrants registered with the political
parties holding the Presidential Preference Election. The recent
Presidential Preference Election was held in February of this year.
This election is called a closed preference primary and only registered
Democrats and Republicans could vote in this election. The Libertarian
and Green Parties did not participate in this Presidential Preference
Election.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the rights of states to determine the
requirements for registering to vote in the state, such as the
requirement to declare your political party affiliation. As long as the
requirements to register do not violate the Voting Rights Act, the
National Voter Registration Act or the U.S. constitution states can set
their own requirements for voter registration. Some of these
restrictions may require proof of U.S. citizenship, not allowing
convicted felons to vote, residency requirements not exceeding 30 days,
registering by a specific deadline prior to the date of election, etc.
If you would like to see more information about the different voter
registration requirements in the different states you should go to this
web site: http://www.fabnit.com/nvra_update.pdf


I am sorry you were given the wrong information. If you wish to
register to vote in our county for the November 4, 2008 General Election
you should go to this web site:
http://www.azsos.gov/election/VoterRegistration.htm

But if they don't rip 'em in half then the person in the office lied to me when I was filling out the forms... Because they deal with these forms so often they should know what they do one way or another, and telling me that was an out and out lie from what should have proven a reputable source.

I'm thinking about re-applying tomorrow via mail and then I can report what happens. I hope I was lied to, as sad as that is .

-Pascal

[Paul]

I think the important thing to point out here is you have a right to vote. Period, and only in extream cases can that right be taken from you. Example: Prison.

Politics is a dirty business. Some are die hard Republicans, others are determined Democrats. There are the independents, liberals, and from there it even gets confusing for me. But to understand how this confusing mess to work goes back to the founding fathers. By having the politcal party systems, it keeps our country's leadership in check.

Can you imagine the internet as our system of government, completely controlled by the Republican Party system? Or how about the Democrats? It could mean the difference between being so ridged you can't breathe, or so loose that you be afraid you were hacked or stalked by God knows who or what. But because they both have equal powers of checks and balances, we can reasonably surf the net knowing we are generally safe, and if something goes amuck, the government powers step in and fixes it. Much like how our system of government works today.

Oh, and registering as an independent is fine. It means that you are doing nothing more than chosing neither of the two major political party systems and are chosing one of your own. Can you imagine our country becoming so politically wacked that the majority of the voters turned independent and voted a candidate to office, who never even made it to the primaries. That's being a powerful voice of the people.

Oh and even though you are a registered member of a party doesn't mean you have to vote that way. My Political Science Teacher votes independent alot because he doesn't agree with what is happening in his particular party system.

Good luck.

[EricTheFred]

As a former election official (very low ranked; before I found myself the last of the Conservative Democrats and left as well, I worked precinct elections) I can verify that Registration does have a good purpose. Three of them, actually. First, it helps the election machinery determine how many workers to put in which precincts, so some aren't overstaffed while others have impossible lines. Second, it helps the parties figure out how many delegates to allot to each precinct (if one has 5000 Republicans, and another has 30, they shouldn't get the same weight at the county convention or caucus. And yes, the differences can be that extreme.) Third, it prevents people from voting in both elections.

This last one is very important. Once upon a time, parties would invade each others primaries to vote for the candidates they thought would be easiest to beat later.

In Texas, we didn't like the pre-registration aspect (having to declare in advance what party one was) so we compromised. You get your card stamped at the first primary you attend. You get a new card before the next primary so you can switch, but now you can no longer visit the other poll (they aren't always in the same location.)

For allotments, we use the previous major election results (Governor and President alternate every two years). However the precinct went down two years ago is assumed to at least somewhat resemble how it will go this time. Sometimes this doesn't work so well (ask Obama supporters who did an incredible get-out-the-vote job this year. They had near-riots at some of the polls and caucuses because those precincts had historically been very low turnouts.)

Still, I personally believe you should be able to state any party affiliation you want on your card. What does it hurt if you don't put R, D or I? It just means you can't participate in Republican or Democratic party polls, right? Do they really want your input if you're a self-declared member of the Raving Lunatic Death Squad?

To those foreigners who shake their heads over our primary system: there is nothing weird about it at all. When you have this many people wrangling over one executive position, and you do not have a parliamentary style government, you have to find some other means of narrowing down the choices before the final election. I know of one Asian country with a non-parliamentary executive which has at times elected the President with a plurality of less than twenty percent, because they had that many choices on the ballot.

If the two party monopoly is ever broken, we will need some other means (such as a run-off system) but for now, this is how we do it. At least, most of our presidents have been elected with a majority vote.

[Technomancer]

To those foreigners who shake their heads over our primary system: there is nothing weird about it at all. When you have this many people wrangling over one executive position, and you do not have a parliamentary style government, you have to find some other means of narrowing down the choices before the final election.

True, but this is much the same even for a parliamentry system like ours if the object is to elect the party leader. What has been traditionally done is for party members in each district to elect their own delegates who then go on to the convention. There is no province-wide primary nor do anyone other than the parties themselves have anything to do with how they're run. Alternatively some of the parties have also opened up the leadership voting directly to all party members via mail or phone-in voting.

I know of one Asian country with a non-parliamentary executive which has at times elected the President with a plurality of less than twenty percent, because they had that many choices on the ballot.

True, this is a persistent problem with first past the post systems. We recently had a province-wide referendum to see about changing this ourselves. Unfortunately, those involved actually managed to propose something worse than FPTP voting, and so it was shot down.

[EricTheFred]

True, but this is much the same even for a parliamentry system like ours if the object is to elect the party leader. What has been traditionally done is for party members in each district to elect their own delegates who then go on to the convention.

This is the old way of doing things in the US. It was widely reviled as a means for political machines to control the party leadership and prevent populist candidates not to their liking from rising to the top. The primary system was instituted in order to put the control directly in the hands of the general membership of the party.

One thing needs to be explained here: in very few states are the primaries mandatory. As I understand it, states generally provide the opportunity to conduct primaries, but the parties decide whether to hold them or do caucuses (which is what you are describing. Your 'district' is apparently my 'precinct'.) To combat the image of back-room deals and manipulation, most state Republican and Democratic parties have chosen to adopt the primaries. A few have not, and in the case of the Texas Dems, they have a half-and-half system (half the decision by primary, half by delegates elected in precinct caucuses.)

Incidentally, in my party (Libertarian) we do caucuses. If you are below a certain number of voters, the cost to the party per member becomes too high to hold primaries.

[Paul]

Eric the Fred: That was very educational. You brought out the business of politics in a way I could understand better. Thank you.

Paul