I thought this was very interesting. A bit scary, actually.
Thursday, March 20, 2008 - Plain Dealer Reporter -
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary.Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party. And at least one board member, Sandy McNair, a Democrat, wants the county prosecutor to review the findings.
Are we living in a place where once you’ve picked a political party you’d better stick with it or fear being investigated/prosecuted?
Let’s examine the facts as we know them. There was a primary in Ohio. There were people who voted in that primary. There were people who switched parties to vote in that primary and were forced into signing “affidavits of allegiance,” something that I don’t believe is in the realm of freedom. The vote is supposed to be secret, yes?
For the State to come down on people who voted is wrong. I can decide to vote either Democrat or Republican at ANY point, and am not willing to pledge absolute “allegiance” to either. Meaning, I agree and disagree with a variety of the current tenets of both parties at any given moment. So if I switch parties, the Government is going to come along and “determine my allegiance”? The Government is going to tell me what I believe? Thank you, but no thank you, Mr. McCarthy.
The opposing argument might be the question of why should the vote be secret? This isn’t the general election we’re talking about, it’s a primary. Why shouldn’t they be forced to sign something? If you want to participate in a party’s program, you follow their rules. My answer to that would be that the vote should be secret because I don’t need my neighbors to know who I voted for. I have a right to participate without having to think about anything except who I want to vote for. As long as this is a free-for-all program that involves the State, I have the right for my voice to be heard and have the right to have my voice to be as anonymous as it is in the general election.
If parties want to take this process away and hold the elections themselves because they don’t agree with the results - fine. As long as my neighbor can’t go vote, either. Draw a name out of a hat to determine your nominee. If you want to leave one voter out of the process because you don’t like their politics, you’d better leave everyone out.
Prosecution of Americans for committing the act of voting is ludicrous. I hope the story I linked to above outrages all Americans, no matter what party has your “allegiance.”
Whether primaries are open or closed, each has their flaws. It’s people that abuse the primary system that are the problem. The election system expects people to vote for the person they want to represent them; the same is true for the primaries except that this isn’t the one and only vote you get, it only establishes the either or choice you get in November and THEN that is your final answer. When people blatantly abuse the system, voting for someone they don’t want to be their representative but want to represent “The Other” in order for their person to have an easier run in the final round, that’s what is breaking down the system and something must be done about it. It is not fair to the people who are voting honestly, their voices are being silenced by cheaters.
On the contrary, malicious crossover votes might not be happening as much as the numbers are telling us, however. It could be legitimate. I’ve seen evidence that many Republicans are crossing over simply because of how poorly Bush has done in terms of approval rating. These aren’t necessarily conservative Republicans, but moderate Republicans who are upset with the party. Given the last 8 years, and how many people Bush had disappointed, maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising at all that we’re seeing a large number of moderate Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries.