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.

 

‘Independents’ banned from California & Nevada Republican Primary

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Source

Well I thought I was hearing things when Lou Dobbs said tonight that
the Republican Party will BAN independent voters who registered as
"declined to state" party affiliations from voting in the Nevada Primaries.
I found out from another source that it is happening in California as well.

The Republicans are saying that the independents will be restricted
(he means punished) for not affiliating with a party so they will not be able
to vote in the primaries.

One even said they were scared as he!! that Ron Paul was gonna
win in California and possibly Nevada.

Now my question to ATS folks is:

Should Independents be allowed to vote in a Republican Primary
if they have no affiliation on their voter cards??

Your views and discuss: It seems to me this is more trickery
to keep RP out of the spotlight by suppressing his votes. To me
this is a most blunt force attack on RP.




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
This really bothers me. It could possibly have something to do with concern that Ron Paul could win states where Independent voters can vote in either party primary. On the other hand he didn't win in New Hampshire which is probably the most likely place for him to have won a state.

I bet the reason is less conspiracy and more along the lines of Republicans wanting to be able to choose their own party nomination rather than have independents making the decision for them. It makes sense from the standpoint of a Republican, given that the Republican candidate should really be the candidate the Republican party has chosen, or the Democratic party for that matter.

The sad fact is that in the early stages of the presidential election process, independent voters are not fairly represented. There isn't a viable third party from which to choose, and this is for good reason. It's because while the United States government boasts its ability to represent people from all walks of life, it is designed to be a two party system.

If you think it was bad when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, you'll cry when one candidate wins with a minority of the country casting their vote for a losing candidate. If we begin to see more non Democrat or Republican Congressmen and Senators, we could potentially have a situation much the same as the presidential race where legislation is passed by a true minority simply because the voting base is dilluted by additional parties.

I am an independent and as an avid fan of the political process i'm frustrated that i cannot participate in the primaries for either party. I live in Florida, a closed primary state.

Another problem is the lack of organization of a third party candidate. It's much easier to mobilize a base of Democrats or Republicans, it's much harder to unite a group of Independent voters who are all clumped together into one category because they won't subscribe to the other two options.

I think third parties are set up to fail in this political process and from what i've seen in many other nations where there are a multitude of parties represented, all we're missing out on is a lot of political strife, much moreso than we are today.

I do hope to vote for Ron Paul in the general election, however.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Quite frankly,

I feel there should be no Party affiliations on Voter ID cards Period.

There should also be one ballot per state, none of this Democrats have there’s and Republicans have there’s.

I feel there should be some sort of rules that are in place to protect voter rights. Because from what I have seen the whole system “sucks”. (< ---- for lack of a better word)



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
They have every right to restrict their primary to only registered republicans... however as one of the comments said; he was able to vote for George W. as an independent, but now... what gives?

Scared much? The most hilarious thing is that Paul lines up more with what the party says they stand for more than any of the others, and yet...

I'm beginning to see that they really are getting worried. I bet Nevada does the same thing, watch. He's been doing well there, according to polls (which are essentially worthless, but it sounds good.
).

I still say this is just beginning.

[edit on 1/16/08 by The Axeman]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I have no party affiliation on my voter's card. When I signed up It did not ask me which party to choose.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jca2005
I have no party affiliation on my voter's card. When I signed up It did not ask me which party to choose.

If you have a voter ID number then you have a party affiliation.
This is done by leading digits or numbers. They vary by state
so not all states have the same code. But all state election boards
know what party affiliation you are even if it doesn't say on the card
"DEM", "REP" or other.

This number may not be visible and may also be small or in
code or in bar code like a check. Expand the image below to
see the full bar code.




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
There is no conspiracy against Paul here people. This is a state issue, not a Republican issue.

Take my state for example. I live in Kentucky. In Kentucky, you can only vote in a Primary if you are voting for a candidate in the party you registered for. If you do not declare a party, you cannot vote in the primary. Period. That goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.

Why is everything that happens a conspiracy to keep Ron Paul from succeeding? Have you ever considered that perhaps he just doesn’t have as much support as you think he does?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Well, he has more than Fred Thompson.


See my post above. They have every right to lock down their primary... but they didn't when Bush was running. Interesting. It gives the impression that they are worried.

Food for thought.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
There is no conspiracy against Paul here people.

Yea, I guess you're right. Guess we'll all just give up
and vote for McRomBee .......

or maybe even Obamalinton .....

cuz we all know the big guys would never
beat up on the little guys.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join