I had lunch the other day with a local Democratic politician. This was my first time meeting her and she asked me what party I belonged to. When I said that I was registered as an Independent she started lecturing me on how I am loosing a vote (in the primaries) and I didn't have to marry either party to be registered in the party. I responded, I know, but I have issues with both of the "major" parties and as such I feel like a hypocrite if I place a check mark in either box. (Ok maybe it's a commitment problem too! )

A few years ago I had dinner with some local Republican Party members. They essentially said the same thing but also said that if I joined one (preferably the Republican Party) I could help to affect change. The more members they have, for instance, that believe in a woman's right to control her body, could add influence to their party.

Have you considered registering in either the Republican or Democratic Party just to have a vote in the primaries? This is, of course, provided your state doesn't have open primaries.

How do you feel about the idea of joining either party (Democratic or Republican) to try and affect change?

Our republican primary is closed, our democrat is opened. This is a uber-conservative state, so when I vote in primaries, I vote for the dem candidate I think has the best shot at beating the repub, unless I like the particular repub. For instance, I will vote for TEd Stevens ® no matter who runs against him, AGAINST Don Young ® and Lisa Murkowski ® no matter who runs against him. So I guess I am an independent LOL

So, even though, you can vote in Democratic Party primary, do you see the validity of joining one of parties to try and affect change?

It enters my mind from time to time. However in the end I do not believe the change from within part. The parties are owned by their fringe groups.
It can get frustrating as an Indie. There aren't enough indies with consistent views to actually amass enough numbers to seriously influence anything.
I generally hope that whoever has the majority doesn't hold the presidency. This generally cancels out the real stupid ideas from each side. The downside of the limited third party influence is that it throws that out of wack. Without Nader we would have Republicans with the majority of the house and senate and Gore as president, instead we have Dubya and a razor thin distance from a very one sided point of veiw. Unfortunately whenever either side gains the slightest lead they begin to spout their "Mandate from the people" garbage and try to force themselves on everyone.

Too bad we can't get enough indies to decide on a few key issues and use our limited vote power to decide key races. Like Nader and Perot showed indies and third party CAN decide who gets elected by taking away key votes in tight races.
Deliberately aim at important candidates in tight races and cause them their seats and maybe we could get more attention from the powers that be. I kinda like the WildCard idea. They would have to seriously address our concerns or chance losing their spots. those who double deal can themselves be dealt with next time around.

I know those words from the Republicans I met have always been with me but I never did do it. It is so frustrating to feel disenfranchised. A child without a home to call her own. But sometimes, like today, it starts to get under skin. I want a home!

I hardly ever vote a straight ticket. If there is a Republican President the Democrats are most likely guaranteed my vote in Congress. If there is a Democratic President the Republicans are most likely guaranteed my vote in Congress. And unless I am so adverse to one candidate will I change that line of thought and go straight ticket. Under no circumstance is any candidate truly getting my mandate! For me its more of a balancing act.

Now what about just registering for a party so you can vote in their primaries? The woman I had lunch with on Sunday made a point that I didn't have to marry the party. Registering for a party doesn't mean you have to vote for that party. Aren't we really loosing a vote by not doing that? Is it worth it, in principle, to loose that vote?

I suppose one could if one really wants the defeat of someone. Bush has tempted me to go Democrat just out of spite. However I really don't beleive you gain enough. I also think that by adding to their numbers they just end up feeling that THEY have a mandate. It is never "we have new people let us hear their thoughts" its "They are with us now because we are right"

Ok, I think I was confused by what point you were applying that too (joining to affect change or checking the box on the registration form).

I think if you join a party to affect change, you have to physically be active in the party. Give money, be active locally, and make your voice heard. Do the Democrats or Republicans use the registered voter numbers to illustrate support for their party? I suppose they do, to some degree, but unless they are active, how do they know that they truly have your support?

I think you are saying, though, by being registered independent it voices our dissent for either party. So in essence our voice is being heard. The Dems and Repubs have to work harder to figure out what our needs are in order to get us.
edited to add: That is where I am having an issue, because the Indie's are all over the board, on where they stand, that it is impossible for either party to figure out what it is we want. So, I feel like, by joining one of the parties, and becoming active, your issues can be heard. By being a silent independent, no one knows what my issues are, all they know is that I am not satisfied with either party.

Thats why I stay indie. They have had to try and speak to our concerns, although that is a very broad range. I get a kick out of watching them trying to figure out what the current crop of independent and dissaffected voters want.
The cases of Nader and Perot shows that the few times enough have banded together over issues that they have had devastating effects on one of the two parties.
Clinton owes Perot and Bush owes Nader.

True the pure range of independants is staggering. Trying to get enough united under one banner is near impossible.
I some time wonder if I am just too cynical. Perhaps a product of my generation which was influenced by two distinct Americas. The old guard of the 40s and 50s style of thought vs. the more rebellious 60s 70s style of thought.
Question authority
Liberty or Death
I pledge Allegiance
United We Stand

No wonder Americans argue so much, we're bipolar.
Conservative vs. Liberal

Thats the temptation though isn't it. If I got involved could I change it??
But of course how to choose when both hold about half of my beleifs?
I am tempted.
But again how do you choose who? I have tried in the past and come up split evenly. Just hold your breath and hope for the best and flip a coin?
I think I am afraid that in joining a side, instead of joining a cause I will end up surrounded by Moonies and handed a glass of kool aid.

NOt in my state- because, since it is a closed Rebublican primary, sometimes it is better not to vote in that, and let the conservatives put the biggest whackadoo in there- so hopefully a dem moderate will be more electable. WE have had a republican super-majority for about 6 years, I think, and they were able to over ride vetoes, but not large enough to tap into the constitutional budget reserve, which put them in some limited check.

I guess the reason I rail against the conservatives so much is that I live in a conservative run state, where the dems are actually right of center moderates. So my vote is actually strategic in trying to get the least crazy corporate sell out possible.

That's the bad part about a viable third party. Had the republican party encompassed enough of what Perot's message was, then Bush would have been President. Had the Dems encompassed the issues that led people to vote for Nadar then Gore would have been President.


Yeah, the cynic in me says no, but the other me says, if they don't know what your stand is then you lose no matter what. An active or registered member of a party doesn't mean you have to vote for that party.


I know!!!! I laugh at myself that I can be so Liberal yet so Conservative. I think, we independents, may have the maximum bipolar issue!!

Here are the stats of the people that post on this forum:

None [ 272 ] [29.3%]
Republican [ 221 ] [23.8%]
Democrat [ 169 ] [18.2%]
Independent [ 94 ] [10.1%]
Libertarian [ 63 ] [6.8%]
Other [ 40 ] [4.3%]
Green Party [ 25 ] [2.7%]
Communist [ 20 ] [2.2%]
Socialist [ 18 ] [1.9%]
Reform [ 4 ] [0.4%]

Assuming AD is a good sample of the country, Out of 100%, the third party, independents, and none have the majority. Shouldn't that be a concern for Repubs and Dems? Now, of course, we do have people included here that are not American so these numbers are slightly off.


CR wouldn't that be a case to register Republican? If, you already know, that the Repubs are most likely going to win, then why not have a say in getting the least wacko and more moderate person in office?

You know, it's actually quite absurd to think that any political party could get as much as 20+% of the population to support it. In fact, the Founding Fathers believed that so much that they created the Electoral College system to help narrow the election of a President down so the House could choose. People seem to think that they can only inact change by being part of a LARGE group and compromising some of their "lesser" beliefs so they can make headway on other more important beliefs. The Democrats and Republicans have effectively scared the population into joining one or the other... but when you step back and look they aren't all that different.

While I haven't done this myself (laziness I guess), it might be wise to be a member of all the parties. This is how it should be. It would mean you don't have to wait until it is down to two candidates. You would vote many times, and it would get you involved in all the issues. One vote would go much further. And why feel like a hypocrite? politicians waffle on the issue on an hourly basis, why can't I play a little 'personal politics'? If I registered as a Democrat and then went and tried to register as a Republican and was asked "are you a registered Democrat", I would lie. This is one of those good times to lie.....

Same goes for Constitution, Libertarian, Natural Law, Green, and well you get the message.

This is what I do. Based on who's incombant, I'll be registered as the opposite party just so I can vote in their primary to either help the guy I like or hurt the guy I don't.

The problem I find with declaring yourself a member of a party (absent from the already mentioned reasons) is the fact that they inundate my mailbox with junk mail. May not be a great reason, but I get sick of being pestered for contributions and $2,000 dinners.

I became an independent when I finaly had enough of the Republican Party's indifference and anything goes,the end justifies the means MO. I'm adamantly opposed to abortions for any reason and though there are many Democrats in agreement they don't have the ear of their party. I was very impressed when Ross Perot began to show both parties The real concerns of thousands were being ignored and people were willing to end affiliations to get their voices heard for once. For awhile it shook up both parties and they considered issues never before discussed.In each election when it comes to the end,it's the independents with the power.

In my state, Washington, one currently doesn't have to register with a party to vote in the primaries, though there are various proposals up to revise it.

I personally don't have a problem with joining a party for the sake of expediency so long as it's understood that doesn't necessarily mean I owe them my loyalty or my vote.

Currently the most attractive Presidential prospect for me is Jesse Ventura in 2008, which he's said he's considering. Since he's an independent, I guess I will be too for the time being.

In my state of Missouri the primary is open. I am an independent but I declared myself a Democrat at the polls so I could vote for Kucinich in the primary because I believed he had the best platform. If Kucinich was not in the race, then I would have declared myself as a Republican and voted for Ashby.