Hugh Hewitt is trending on Twitter. On MSNBC's Meet the Press this morning, he said he is voting for Bernie Sanders in the Virginia primary this week, even though he plans to vote for Trump in the general election. Hewitt says he is voting for Sanders because Bernie is "authentic" and Hewitt wants to see a "clear choice between candidates" in the general election. Is crossover voting between the primary election and the general election cheating?
Often people 'cheat' by finding ways to undermine the integrity and spirit of the game, in ways that the formalized 'rules' have yet to catch up with. That is why rules have to be amended periodically to catch up. it would be wrong for republicans to try to elect a democrat that they think is an easier or more divisive target, only to switch parties and vote for the republican that they wanted to win all along. The fact that his state has not figured out an effective way to counter it, without punishing people who are newly registered but sincere Dems, means that they can get away with it.
and this is why we have to have so many regulations.... many will do bad things, if they can get away with it Adultery is legal, so Trump and Clinton did it, does it make it right? or is it cheating? just cause one can get away with cheating doesn't mean it's not cheating
Its stretegy. Successful strategy is usually considered 'cheating' by those the strategy is employed against.
So to use the analogy above, cheating on ones spouse is a successful strategy to get variety in pleasure, and pass one's DNA through another woman other than ones wife, and the mother of ones children, and still maintain the security of a long term relationship and prevent a rival from having access to her to spread his DNA. The mere fact that cheating may provide wanted dividends, does not negate the fact it is an effort to undermine the integrity and spirit of the marriage .
Essentially. However, when people get married, they usually pledge some sort of voluntary abstinance from such practice, and engaging in it violates that vow. So, not quite the same. But you knew that, didn't you? It should also be noted that a healthy marriage may not be the proper environment to be employing any 'strategies' against...
I recall reading that Trump won several primaries in 2016 because up to 5% of people who were for Hillary in the general election tried to strategically push Trump above all the Republican competitors since he was the only one polling to lose to her. It may have been effective to get Trump the nomination. On the other hand, people who voted for Sanders to win the 2016 nomination were sincerely angry at how the DNC treated him. 12% of Sanders voters ended up voting for Trump. They were sincere though, and not being "strategic"...they initially did want Bernie until the DNC cheated him. I don't think there needs to be a way to "counter" cross-over voting since some people legitimately change their minds between the primary and the general. Plus, Hewitt said he wanted an "authentic" candidate on the Democrat's side of the election. He said that all the candidates besides Bernie are pretending to be progressives to win the nomination and he wants America to see a clear contrast between contenders for the general election.
I don't see we'll see anything like that again, no matter what the DNC does. People didn't know just how bad Trump was in 2016, though to his credit, (and the eternal shame of that 12%) Sanders was not shy at all about warning against him.
No one wants one party having all the power for the life of the nation. That's a communist idea. No one wants communism once it's in place. Ask the Ukrainians.
In 2016, there was more incentive for Democrats to cross over and try to influence who would be the Republican nominee. This year, since Trump has no competition, there will be more incentive for Republicans to do as Hewitt is doing, and crossover vote for a Democrat in the primaries. I doubt crossover voters make much difference, even though I saw estimates as high as 12 million Hillary Democrats who strategically voted for Republican candidates in the 2016 primaries. Some voted for Trump, thinking he was weakest and would be easiest for Hillary to beat. Others voted for Rubio or some other candidate in case the Republicans won....they reasoned they wanted a "sane and predictable" President if Hillary lost. It would take a concerted strategy across the country for all cross-over voters to chose the same opposition-party candidate and really make a dent in the nomination...and I don't see that happening.
Who the heck said anything about one-party rule or communism??? I'm talking about Ranked Voting!... You know, Instant Runoff, Ranked Pairs? That sort of thing... -Meta
Only those who are for absolute change without adaptation are for that. Communism comes to mind. Once your ideas are put into practice, all hell is going to break loose and this nation will become dependent on the rest of the world. I'm not for that.
Hogwash! Show me one instance of a country implementing a ranked system like Instant Runoff or Ranked Pairs and then becoming communist as a result! You can't do it, can you?... because such a thing has never happened! If you have gripes with how Ranked Voting works or something, then that's one thing, but let's not go misconstruing to the level of farce what Ranked Voting actually is! -Meta
How is it cheating? In states that allow cross party or independent voting in the primaries, you can do it so...it's not cheating. Is it a good idea to allow that? I would say no. States should restrict primary voting to those who are actually registered in that party to prevent exactly the type of mayhem Hewitt is trying to cause, but it's not cheating.
same way that having sex with another partner then ones spouse is cheating... even though it's legal if you're doing it with the intent on cheating, it's cheating, simple "States should restrict primary voting to those who are actually registered in that party to prevent exactly the type of mayhem Hewitt is trying to cause" agree with you there, and also agree that independents could vote in both and should be able too, but if one registered for a party, that is their party, then again, maybe they should have to pick their top pick too, vote in one or the other, where ever their top pick is I would probably just leave this up to the parties to decide for themselves how to handle
That is not crossover voting. Crossover voting occurs when there is a runoff in one party's primary and people who voted in the other party's primary then vote in that runoff. It's illegal in my state. That goes back to a primary where it happened and the one candidate who won outright was urging those in his party to vote for the weaker candidate in the other where there was a runoff to make it easier for him to win. Crossover Voting Law and Legal Definition Crossover voting occurs when a voter who participated in one political party's primary election votes in the primary run-off election for an opposing political party. For example, a voter who participated in the Republican Party primary may not vote in the Democratic Party's primary runoff. Cross over voting is considered an election fraud in some states. Many states authorize political parties to establish rules governing its primary elections including the establishment of rules as to who may vote in its runoff election. https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/crossover-voting/ I voted no in the poll because of the way you are painting it but yes REAL crossover voting is cheating.
I didn't vote in the poll, because I think its asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "is it cheating", the question ought to be "should it be allowed" and "why/why not". My opinion is that the best way to handle the issue is to simply change up the system so that it isn't possible. Or in other words, switch over to a Ranked Voting system. Otherwise, fixing the issue would likely involve limiting who folks can vote for somehow. And while I would consider the issue problematic... after-all, the purpose of any election system ought to be to accurately represent the collective wishes of the voters. The issue laid out in the OP certainly distorts that representation... but imo we should give voters the most freedom, practically speaking, to vote for who they want, when they want, as limits on that freedom can distort things just as well. -Meta
Disenfranchising voters is not my idea of fair. Your method is a way to have communists rule, if they are on the ballot. It's pretty simple when all votes given to a good candidate who does not have enough votes to be elected, go to the next in line and so on until the worst possible candidate with the least support falsely shows the public he/she had greater support than they did. Where does it end? When you have the results of a popular vote. Don't play with me, Meta. I'm not as stupid as you think.
