Comments on: This is Still America, Right?

By: Arlington

Arlington — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:45:17 +0000

It’s not actually an "oath," and it doesn’t say "will vote for the Republican candidate."

Rather, it reads:
"Pledge: I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for President."

I was concerned at first about this, but it seems to me an easy pledge for anyone who is likely to vote Republican in the general election. After all, you can "intend to support the nominee," but also intend to withhold that support in the event the nominee is Mike Huckabee.

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:42:44 +0000

Yes, having to be registered in a party in order to vote in that party’s primary is common and generally uncontroversial. That’s the way it is in DC and lots of other places. Checking "Republican" on your voter registration is in no way the same as swearing you’ll always vote for the Republican candidate in the general election. The problem is that Virginia doesn’t have party registration, so the Republicans are imposing this insanity instead and digging themselves further into the hole they’re in in Virginia.

By: gary

gary — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:25:26 +0000

This is pretty messed up. However, I know where I grew up (NJ), in order to vote in a primary, you need to be a registered/declared member of that party. That I don’t have a problem with, I mean it’s a party selecting a candidate for the general election, but what VA is doing seems over the top.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:37:12 +0000

This goes beyond closed primary tactics (though unenforcable), I’d say. There’ve been several election years where each party fielded someone in the primary stage who I’d be willing to vote for but ended up running someone I wouldn’t be willing to support.

Asking people to commit to the party above all if they want to have any say in how it’s run is odious.

By: Tom Bridge

Tom Bridge — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:31:10 +0000

Or, Ross, they could’ve done what so many other states have done and required it be a closed primarily based on party affiliation.

It’s not that I find swearing an oath to be so odious, but it’s the mere ridiculousness of it all and wastefulness that I find so frustrating.

By: Ross M Karchner

Ross M Karchner — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:14:29 +0000

The Board of Elections should have added the obvious corollary– Only people who have previously signed the oath should be able to vote Republican in the presidential election.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:38:56 +0000

I remember this being somewhat of an issue in 2000 when McCain was coming off his victory in New Hampshire. The party establishment was afraid of there being a lot of independents or Democrats flooding the ballots, so they had a form that they wanted you to sign that said you weren’t going to vote in the Democratic primary too. I don’t think they went so far as to require you to vote for the Republican.

Too bad my fellow McCain voters fell short that day. Had he won in Virginia, he may have ended Bush’s career right then and there.

By: Mike Licht

Mike Licht — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:02:21 +0000

Poo Poo: DC has separate party primaries but open general election ballots, so DC Dems can vote for Libertarian, Socialist Worker, Republican or Green Party presidential candidates. VA election law allows cross-over voting in primaries. The state GOP wants to enforce party loyalty, but this "oath" is as close as they can get. Republicans have done things like this before.

By: poo poo

poo poo — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:46:10 +0000

it’s been like that in washington, dc for years.