The Unaffiliated Dilemma

May 6th, 2008 by Brad Spry · 4 Comments

On primary voting day, unaffiliated voters can vote, but they have to choose sides. Democrat OR republican, not democrat AND republican. It’s ironic and quite frankly odd to be unaffiliated and still be unable to choose candidates from both sides. It feels as if some of your rights are being taken away the moment you pick sides, because your available choices instantly become limited. What is holding back a combined primary ballot for unaffiliated voters? Politics? Maybe there’s a valid reason. Please enlighten me.

Tags: 2008 Election · Cabarrus Elections · Personal Experiences

4 responses so far ↓

1 Tony Hooker // May 6, 2008 at 10:32 am

Well, my thought is that Parties do have the right to decide who is a member, and decide their own methods for choosing their candidates.

If any party wanted to, they could pick candidates for the general election based on any criteria they desire. They could allow any voter, they could only allow registered voters (i.e. non-affiliated cannot vote in that party’s primary) In fact, they could do a giant round of Rock Paper Scissors if they really wanted to.

So the main reason why is that each of the parties decided that they don’t want their candidate to be selected that way.

Your right isn’t being taken away. You don’t have any “right” to vote in a particular party’s primary.

Now, as a matter of politics, it is advantageous for each of the two major parties to be overly inclusive, and allow people to easily register as a party member and vote in that party’s primary. But they don’t HAVE to do that, it’s not your right to have a vote in a primary.
2 Brad Spry // May 6, 2008 at 11:17 am

How can it be advantageous when the unchosen party loses votes? There may not be a right, but the end result is less votes cast because of the inability to choose. Rock, paper, scissors would almost certainly result in less agita.
3 Brad Spry // May 6, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Got a little history lesson at lunch from a colleague. He validated the “no right” to vote in a primary, even parties denying ballots to those they didn’t like. Keep in mind this isn’t today, but way back when. He also mentioned how you would walk in to a polling place back then and literally get your ballot from one party or the other, a possible origin of the “choosing sides” part of primaries. These things may not be perfect and true, but “history” being the ~~excuse~~ reason certainly sounds believable. Hopefully the candidates for whom I wasn’t able to cast a vote for this morning will make it through the primary wilderness and I’ll have a chance to vote for them in the general election. I just wish I could have played a role in that this morning.
4 Justin Thibault // May 7, 2008 at 12:08 am

Brad - NC Law is setup like this: the party makes the decision who to allow to vote in their primary.

Not to get too far into it, but forcing a choice among ballots (Republican, Democrat, or Unaffiliated) keeps the shenanigans to a minimum.

Given current trends, there will be enough unaffiliated voters and enough unaddressed policy issues to accommodate a third (or even fourth) party. Then, things might get really interesting.