It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A True Story: What happens if you're unaffiliated.

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Today was "primary day" in my state. Three weeks or so ago, my husband and I both received postcards (invitations) as to where to come and vote.

We are BOTH registered 'unaffiliated.'

He went to vote.
The lady said - "You can't vote - you're not affiliated with the party".

He said - "I don't care what color [as in 'red' or 'blue'] someone is - whether donkey or elephant. I judge by their performance. I just want to vote."

"Well," she said, "you can't - unless you want to sign up here [hands him a postcard for changing to a party]. THEN you can vote."

He said, "Well, never mind then."

He came home and told me this story.
I suggest that one can flip-flop on every election, because we are free to change our 'voter registration affiliation' at ANY time.

Then we got to talking.
WHY did they send us an invitation when they KNEW we were 'unaffliliated' in the first place?

So that they could "force us" to sign up with their party (or A Party) before we were allowed?

How does that serve the independent/third party supporters????
If we ALL went to the polling place - and got turned away because we have to subscribe to one side or the other - how is that "fair elections"?

Do they have "I Tried to Vote" stickers to hand out??? No. No, they don't. But they DO have you sign in - before they tell you you can't vote...unless you "do this" first.....and then he would have access not to just a 'paper' ballot, but to a touch-screen ballot!

This was our chance to vote OUT the incumbents. But no - you don't have a say because you don't claim one of the TWO parties!!
...................
I suggested he and I go back there together; I could pitch a fit about the above - and we could both change real quick to whatever party they are marketing....
and then go into the booths; he could holler at me: "Honey! Who did you say I was supposed to choose?"
And I could holler back from my booth: "I can't remember!"

And he could then hit select/cancel, select/cancel - like 100s of times - to overload and crash their server.


WHAT THE HELL is with "unaffiliated" people not being allowed to vote in primaries?
How many 'shoppers' are actually going to "send in the receipt for the $50 rebate" on a major purchase? How many are going to bother to change their "affiliation" for every single election? (They can - no rule or law against it - but just - how many WOULD?)

But no - they don't have an "I tried to vote" sticker.

What a sham.

That is all. This is an anecdotal story about voting. Mods, if you want to switch it to grey area or whatever, go right ahead. This is reality on the ground in a heavily Republican state. That is falling apart.




edit on 8/5/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

PA is that way!

Forget about if you might want to select the person whom you deem most likely to be better regardless of the D or R. They FORCE you to select either or.

Not much of a choice is it, when they get to steer you in one direction or the other......



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The whole system is designed to maintain the two-party paradigm. Why do you think that they didn't let Gary Johnson (Libertarian) or Jill Stein (Green Party) attend the national debate in 2012? Hell they actually arrested Jill for trying to enter the building where the debate was being held. Not to mention, a party has to receive 5% of the national vote before the government deems it fit to provide election campaign funding for the NEXT election. Meaning that the party has to lose (but not by too much) an election and wait while a party they disagree with takes charge for 4 additional years before they can get serious funding to actually mount a legit campaign.

You should also look up gerrymandered congressional districts. Read this article. It is sickening.
America’s most gerrymandered congressional districts



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I feel your pain. I'm not affiliated with any party either. When I don't vote (which has been for several years now), people will sometimes try to tell me that if I don't vote, I'm "part of the problem" or have no right to complain about the system. Sometimes people will say - "Just vote for the lesser of two evils."

Why should I cast a vote for someone who isn't fit to change the oil in my car, let alone govern? Why should I vote for the lesser of two incompetents?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I wouldnt waste my time voting. We threw out a bunch of incumbents last time, and nothing has changed. Voting is just the illusion of power.

I vote not to play their imaginary democracy game.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
A few states have open primaries but apparently your state is not one of them. This is the price we pay for being independent voters. Pitching a fit at the polling site will only get you removed from the polling site since the poll workers have no control over the laws by which they must abide.
Your beef should be with your legislators. Apparently you're newly registered as "unaffiliated" since this has been standard practice for years in most states.
Is it fair? I think not since all taxpayers pay for the elections to be held but only registered donkeys or elephants can participate. If they want to hold primaries for their candidates only they should be forced to cover the costs of their activities.
A great example of the "Tyranny of the Majority" when those of us who don't wish to be classified are denied the vote. Write or call your state legislators.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

A primary is a party event....it is not a Federal election. It is the party saying to it's own members, come vote who you want to represent US as a party.

In some states, primaries are "open" meaning that any one can vote in them regardless if you are a member of the party or not, in some states they are closed.

You will have your chance to vote out the incumbent during the election, not the primary...your right to vote hasn't been taken away from you.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Voting doesn't matter. It's an "illusion of choice" - George Carlin. The game has been rigged for decades at a minimum.

Think about it - voting has been ingrained in us from grade school. We are taught about the system, told that our vote counts, and that it's our civic duty. The truth is, it's never mattered who wins those elections. No politician ever cares about "the people" unless "the people" happen to be large donors.

This party affiliation scam is merely a guilt trip to force you into Red or Blue. It forces you to buy into the two party system.

Now, having said that - a three or four party system wouldn't matter either. The corporatocracy that exists in the USA would just make sure the 3rd or 4th party candidate that it wanted to be elected was the only option. (Perfect example - look how the Tea Party really started and what it turned into.)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

There have been situations where parties actually encourage their members to vote in the other party's primary to increase the likelihood they run against the opposition they want.

People. Personally, I prefer sea turtles.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

If the tax payers are paying for the event then the event doesn't get to decide who can or can not vote.
If they want to do this privately with their own money, fine you decide.
Seems like a grey area of the right to vote getting taken away from you, who runs for either party affects me regardless of who i affiliate with so I have the right to vote for who runs.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



And you still want to argue the fact that we live in a soft tyranny.


lolz



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I am unaffiliated. I vote based on the candidate and ignore party. For primaries I figure out who I want to vote for and then register for their party temporarily. I hate doing that, but it is the only way it can be done. Once I vote, I switch back to no party affiliation and then I am good to go for the main election. It is a bit of work I know, but if you feel strongly about a candidate in the primaries, it is worth it.

This year I have not found anyone that has earned my vote, so my unaffiliated registration remains.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
We've never been allowed to vote in an election primary for this reason...



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
This differs state to state. It is mostly funded by local and state taxes. The reason they rarely let the parties fund them is when they did they used to make sure that blacks in the south could not vote. Of course the logic of having people in a party pic the person to represent that party in a general election is sound. Like it or not.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: kruphix

If the tax payers are paying for the event then the event doesn't get to decide who can or can not vote.
If they want to do this privately with their own money, fine you decide.
Seems like a grey area of the right to vote getting taken away from you, who runs for either party affects me regardless of who i affiliate with so I have the right to vote for who runs.


You right to vote isn't removed because you never had the right to decide who the party nominates. It's their choice. You can start a party and nominate your own candidate if you want

Think of it on a smaller scale. Say you lived in a household with 5 other people. Together you formed the Sremos political party, and your housemates nominate you to represent that party. Your goal for your political party is to serve the needs of YOUR household.

Why should your neighbor be able to come into your house and dictate which one of you runs for office? If your neighbor wants someone to run for office, that's his responsibility, he doesn't have the right to high-jack your movement and put his own person in place.

You have the right to vote for the position up for grabs, you can vote for anybody you want, nobody is stopping you from doing that. A republican candidate is supposed to represent republican party ideals, if you aren't a republican why should you have any say in who they nominate? A democratic candidate is supposed to represent the Democratic party, and if you aren't a democrat, why should you have any say in nomination?

You don't have to be nominated by the democrats or republicans to run for office, If you did THEN your right to vote would be violated because you'd only be allowed to vote for people from those parties. You don't have that restriction. You can vote for anybody, so how is your vote being restricted?

edit on 5-8-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Registered Independent, when the Independent party forms and I'm still barred from picking the Independent party candidate, I'll feel disenfranchised. Otherwise, I run the risk of winding up with candidates who are selected by whichever party can get the most of their members out to vote no matter whether those voters actually intend to elect that candidate or not when the actual election comes. You may like the idea of a bunch of liberal progressives picking the stupidest candidate out there in the opposition party to try to make sure that their favored candidate has weak opposition or the inverse - TEA Party voters crossing party lines to pick the looniest progressive, open socialist to protect the stronger, more conservative candidate - but I'd prefer it if the fight stayed a little closer to honest.

Let each side out their pick their own candidates. Then let everyone vote in the general.
edit on 5-8-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: kruphix
A primary is a party event....it is not a Federal election. It is the party saying to it's own members, come vote who you want to represent US as a party.


Exactly. A party primary is for the members of the party. They are supposed to pick THEIR choice to represent THEIR party. If you want a say in the party primary process, then you must sign up with a party. Otherwise, you get to vote and pick from the candidates on election day. You are not being disenfranchised at all.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You must have this confused with a Democracy. It never was.

We keep trying to bring Democracy to other countries while ignoring the fact that we never had one ourselves.

My theory: "If you voted for either one, you have no right to complain."



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

But!

What if I prefer another candidate that isn't in my "party".



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

I thought the primary was where gullible people went to vote on who best represents the way they were told to think. Seems like we could just skip all the formalities every 4 years and our rulers could just tell us who they chose to win. There would be no functional difference between that and the current system - and it would help balance the budget.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join