Slog
News & ArtsFriday, December 30, 2011
2012 Virginia GOP Undermines the Very Notion of Pledges by Forcing Primary Voters to Sign One
Posted by Goldy on Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:59 PM
The Virginia State Board of Elections has given the state Republican Party permission to require voters to sign a loyalty oath before being allowed to participate in the March presidential primary:
According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, voters will be required to sign a document that reads: “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”
Virginia does not oblige voters to be registered to a party before participating in the primary. Voters are welcome to vote in both Democratic and Republican primaries unless they are held on the same day.
Honestly... what a bunch of assholes. If they don't want Democrats voting in their primaries, then they should work to change the state law to require registration by party. But forcing voters to sign a loyalty will only condition voters to feel not so bad about breaking oaths.
1
There are some situations in which a moral imperative requires dishonesty. Such moral imperatives might include "Not voting for a misanthropic lunatic in the general Presidential election, even if I was required under relative duress to sign a pledge to do so in order to exercise my right to vote in primary elections."
2
Honestly... what a fucking whiner you are Goldy. The pledge seems pretty innocuous and is not enforceable in any manner. Maybe they are working for or have worked for a change in the law. Maybe there doesn't need to be a law when people can just figure shit out on their own. There's plenty in the world to be upset about. Find a worthwhile cause for your holy war.
3
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of time people will spend to craft a response to something they think is a waste of time.
4
I consider this to be deeply immoral. It forces people to take an oath that is inherently bad. A decent person who has Republican views may feel obligated to vote in the primary to try to encourage a candidate they support to win the primary. But if their candidate loses and someone they feel is bad for this country wins, then they would be ethically required to not support that candidate. This oath doesn't state that you only have to support the candidate you voted for, which means they are trying to force people to support someone they may feel is a bad candidate. I consider it immoral to force people to take an oath with a reasonable probability of requiring them to either break it or act unethically. And it is deeply wrong to make one's right to participate in an election conditional on an immoral action, such as having to agree to such an oath.
5
The parties in Washington do exactly the same thing for their caucuses: if you want to participate, you must take a loyalty oath.
6
Dumb. What can they do, though? Is it legally binding in some way? Is it even legally binding in a Slog poll way?
7
Techbear, a caucus is not a public election. This is so messed up. So much for privacy in the voting booth. Someone's threatening our elections, and it's sure as hell not Democratic voters or the DNC.
9
@ 2, that pledge will serve its purpose - discourage non-Republican participation in their primary. It won't eliminate it, but more people feel like complying with the things they sign, regardless of its enforceability, than those who don't. (And who wants the GOP having their name on record, anyway?)
Goldy's right about one thing - they should change their law if they want only registered Republicans voting in their primary. But I remember the shitstorm that ensued when Washington was forced to give up its precious open primary, so I kind of doubt Virginians will be any more accommodating.
Goldy's right about one thing - they should change their law if they want only registered Republicans voting in their primary. But I remember the shitstorm that ensued when Washington was forced to give up its precious open primary, so I kind of doubt Virginians will be any more accommodating.
10
If you can argue that participating in the primary election has a value, I think you could make a case that this is vote-buying, which might actually be illegal.
11
I never considered voting in the Republican primary in Virginia. Until now. Now I'm mad enough and curious enough to try it. Who should I vote for?
Unregistered @4 makes some good points. With the oath, you're forcing some/many people to eventually vote for a candidate that may not be their first choice or even a viable choice.
Unregistered @4 makes some good points. With the oath, you're forcing some/many people to eventually vote for a candidate that may not be their first choice or even a viable choice.
12
You know, I intend to do lots of things that I somehow never get around to.
Pledging a present intention means almost nothing in the future, being as shit happens, you're free to change your mind, and no one can ever say that your intention wasn't honest while it lasted.
It'd be somewhat worse, and probably illegal, if you were forced to pledge your vote and support and to forego any support for the other side.
So, this thing, isn't really a thing at all. It's just posturing.
Pledging a present intention means almost nothing in the future, being as shit happens, you're free to change your mind, and no one can ever say that your intention wasn't honest while it lasted.
It'd be somewhat worse, and probably illegal, if you were forced to pledge your vote and support and to forego any support for the other side.
So, this thing, isn't really a thing at all. It's just posturing.
13
@3 Perhaps I misread you but I draw a distinction between a wannabe political pundit publishing nonsense on a blog and commenters commenting on said nonsense.
I'm curious. Does anyone have a rational argument for why non-republicans should have the right to vote in a republican primary? Should we all have to the right to participate in any election for any organization including, say, the Sierra Club, the Libertarian party, my mom's book club? Hint: a good answer will probably work from the Constitution forward to present day law and precedent.
I'm curious. Does anyone have a rational argument for why non-republicans should have the right to vote in a republican primary? Should we all have to the right to participate in any election for any organization including, say, the Sierra Club, the Libertarian party, my mom's book club? Hint: a good answer will probably work from the Constitution forward to present day law and precedent.
14
Republicans are dreadful people. They sneeze into salad bars and steal towels from hotels. Plus, they serve cheap wine at their dinner parties.
16
@14: Like Kissinger, your average Republican picks his nose and eats it. He also sticks his chewing gum on the bottom of restaurant tables.
17
Matt, BLUE: Did you miss the detail that the pledge requires the signer to support the Republican nominee in the GENERAL election? It doesn't even mention the primary election.
If the intent was to simply prevent cross voting in the primary, the pledge would have been more along the lines of, "I pledge to vote only for members of my party in this primary election."
Sounds more like they realize how splintered their party has become, and know there is a large percent that would never, ever vote for one or the other of the current clowns in the race, for whatever reason. (Too Mormon, too female, too crazy, etc.) So they're hoping this pledge will make them hold their noses and vote for a Romney or a Bachmann or a Paul rather than stay home.
If the intent was to simply prevent cross voting in the primary, the pledge would have been more along the lines of, "I pledge to vote only for members of my party in this primary election."
Sounds more like they realize how splintered their party has become, and know there is a large percent that would never, ever vote for one or the other of the current clowns in the race, for whatever reason. (Too Mormon, too female, too crazy, etc.) So they're hoping this pledge will make them hold their noses and vote for a Romney or a Bachmann or a Paul rather than stay home.
18
The bigger question (one that is impacting Washington State) is why private organizations like political parties get to have publically funded elections held for them at taxpayer expense.
19
As usual, today's Republicans expect their supporters to toe the party line rather than voting for what they think will best benefit the country.
20
@ 17, no, I didn't miss that detail at all. I can see why you'd interpret it that way, but the GOP mentality is more close-ranked than the Dem mentality - needing to ensure that Republicans vote Republican would be unprecedented.
What isn't unprecedented is the phenomenon of people of one political stripe taking advantage of open primaries to try to wreak havoc and get the "beatable" candidate a win. I don't know of any particularly successful instance, at least not in terms of how the votes turned out, but I've seen enough freaking out at the prospect that I believe keeping liberals from mucking up the primary is the reason for this pledge.
Things like this are always reactions. No one is being proactive here.
What isn't unprecedented is the phenomenon of people of one political stripe taking advantage of open primaries to try to wreak havoc and get the "beatable" candidate a win. I don't know of any particularly successful instance, at least not in terms of how the votes turned out, but I've seen enough freaking out at the prospect that I believe keeping liberals from mucking up the primary is the reason for this pledge.
Things like this are always reactions. No one is being proactive here.
21
Shaming people ahead of time before they do something you don't want them to do is the sort of morally repugnant but politically effective thing that Republicans are good at. It will be especially effective in keeping Dems from voting as Republicans, because only Dems care about the larger issue of social morality (as opposed to the fake morality of fundie rightwing Christians).
22
re: Republican loyalty oaths in Washington state
I participated in the Republican caucus in 2010 (I'm a Republican), and as I recall, the "loyalty oath" that I signed said that I wouldn't participate in the caucuses of another party for that election cycle. I think I actually asked whether it meant that I couldn't change parties in another election cycle just to make sure. I don't plan to change parties, but I want to keep my choices. It might have also said that I considered myself a member of the Republican party and was eligible to vote in the next election.
But I didn't have to promise or intend to support any candidate. While I am a Republican, I'm not a straight party line voter, and would be uncomfortable promising to support a candidate without even knowing who that candidate is.
Also when Washington holds a presidential primary (at least in 2008), voters are required to sign their ballot or ballot envelope (I think it was actually the envelope) that they are a member of a particular political party in order to vote. This feels wrong to me in a public election, although I don't think it's wrong in a caucus setting.
I participated in the Republican caucus in 2010 (I'm a Republican), and as I recall, the "loyalty oath" that I signed said that I wouldn't participate in the caucuses of another party for that election cycle. I think I actually asked whether it meant that I couldn't change parties in another election cycle just to make sure. I don't plan to change parties, but I want to keep my choices. It might have also said that I considered myself a member of the Republican party and was eligible to vote in the next election.
But I didn't have to promise or intend to support any candidate. While I am a Republican, I'm not a straight party line voter, and would be uncomfortable promising to support a candidate without even knowing who that candidate is.
Also when Washington holds a presidential primary (at least in 2008), voters are required to sign their ballot or ballot envelope (I think it was actually the envelope) that they are a member of a particular political party in order to vote. This feels wrong to me in a public election, although I don't think it's wrong in a caucus setting.
23
But only bad people will break their oath. And they can't possibly feel bad about breaking their oath. They'll feel good about it, because doing bad things makes bad people feel good. Holy shit, nobody is forcing the bad people to sign an oath they will be (gleefully and with relish) breaking. If anything, the oath is going to bring the bad people out of the fucking woodwork just for the chance to break the fuck of that bitch.
Dude, you are just unfamiliar with the concept of being bad? Have you not heard of Mae West? Is Oscar the Grouch somehow outside your world? Go talk to Dan Savage. He's probably on his way to the airport to fly down there and skull fuck that oath sideways on top of a Bible.
Dude, you are just unfamiliar with the concept of being bad? Have you not heard of Mae West? Is Oscar the Grouch somehow outside your world? Go talk to Dan Savage. He's probably on his way to the airport to fly down there and skull fuck that oath sideways on top of a Bible.
24
This is less government. Any republican who signs this pledge will be engaging in an unconstitutional act of hipocrisy.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS