http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...io-crosso.html


Ohio is a closed primary. Limbaugh might have forgotten about that...

Who cares? They're sleazy, but you really don't want to get into arguments over whether a voter *really* supports the party whose primary they're voting in. That's purely subjective and would turn into a real mess.

Better some ethically-challenged sleazeballs get to vote than some real voters don't.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Except that the conservatives have successfully subverted the democratic primary...

I don't see how enforcing the law disenfranchises anybody.

BFD. Primaries are essentially a private party function anyway, used solely to determine who the party will nominate as its candidate. The law should play no part in it; the parties should run them -- and control them -- as they see fit.

How do you determine if someone "really believes" what they say they believe?

It's not an objective standard. It could easily be used to bar legitimate voters from voting.

Better to let a few dirtbags vote than to risk keeping legitimate voters from doing so.

If the party wants tighter control, it can issue membership cards or something. But crossover voting shouldn't be a legal violation.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

If they're registered with the other party, and the vote for the Democrats, it's clear that they're breaking the law.

Why? What about moderates, or single-issue voters, or people who change their minds? Any one of those could be registered with one party but have legitimate reasons to support a candidate of the other party in a given contest.

Me, I voted for two Dems, one Rep and an independent in the last election. Should it have been illegal for me to participate in the primaries?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

In a closed primary, yes, if you're not registered with the Democrats.

Why should Republicans be allowed to subvert our nominating process, like they have done?

Fair enough. But it should be a party function, not a matter of law.

I think you overestimate the effect of such crossover voters. Most voters, even Republicans, either have ethics or better things to do.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Well, I dunno; it makes perfect sense...

There is documentation that clinton received twice as many votes in some districts than there are Democrats.

Moreover, the radio-listening right isn't exactly thrilled with their nominee...

And while I understand your point; that it shouldn't be a matter of law, we're talking about possible class-5 felonies in Ohio.


Again, you won't here me arguing about this in Texas, or other open primaries, because that's perfectly allowed in their systems.

I think you have a point, f0cal. Republicans have subverted the process.

Note who the republicans voted for in Iowa.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri.../epolls/#IADEM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8848.html
You underestimate the republicans deep hatred for Hillary.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt