Virginia state legislator Bob Marshall, a Republican, has publicly urged his party to drop the voter loyalty oath for the March 6 presidential primary. See this story.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Virginia state legislator Bob Marshall, a Republican, has publicly urged his party to drop the voter loyalty oath for the March 6 presidential primary. See this story.
I am not a Republican, but if the Republican Party wants to allow people to participate in their decision-making process “with conditions” for the general election, they have every right to do so. They are a PRIVATE organization, despite the current p.c. claim that political parties belong to all voters. I see it as a contractual matter; albeit an unenforceable one — but to an honest individual, a promise made should be a promise kept, regardless of whether it’s legally enforceable.
Political parties were formed around the wish to gather numerical strength around a particular set of ideas. If you don’t have any loyalty to the party or its goals, you should not interfere with their process.
That said, I see government-run primaries as state subsidies for those private organizations, and that’s one subsidy I’d like to see abolished. Political party members should be free to determine who will run under their banner without interference — but they should also come to their decision using their own money.
I wrote an article about this:
http://freevirginia.blogspot.com/2011/12/teachable-moment-for-republicans.html
Marc, with respect, I don’t necessarily agree. I don’t think the question should be whether or not they can do this, but whether or not they should. Obviously, the answer is no.
To assume that people support a party over a candidate is ridiculous. Even in our own Libertarian Party, I think such a condition would have gone over very poorly in 2008, when many people such as myself would have happily supported Mary Ruwart but could never, in good conscience, vote for Bob Barr. Likewise, I plan to vote in the Republican primary in Virginia for Ron Paul, but would never support Mitt Romney if he were the nominee.
You also have to take into account the fact that the Republican Party here might be forcing people into agreeing to support a nominee that isn’t even on our ballot. If Gingrich were to win the Republican primaries, we would be forced to vote for someone in the general election that wasn’t even on the ballot here in Virginia. That’s completely unreasonable.
I still plan to cast my vote for Ron Paul in the primary. If they want me to sign some pledge, I’ll do it. But I don’t expect to be held to it. Say what you want about my morals, but I don’t believe I am under any obligation to sell my vote for the priviledge of voting for a person I believe to be the best candidate. I’m not voting for the Republican Party, I’m voting for Ron Paul. I can’t help but feel that this move by the Party is specifically designed to try to keep Ron Paul voters from showing up at the polls. They know that many of us would not support any of the Republican candidates but Ron Paul.
If he loses the nomination, I’m going right back to voting Libertarian… and I won’t feel badly about it.
1. Sorry — in the nomination of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices the parties are PUBLIC groups of PUBLIC electors — TOTALLY subject to PUBLIC laws regarding such nominations.
See the Texas Donkey party – Black primary cases in SCOTUS – circa 1928-1932.
See the 1989 Eu case in SCOTUS — Public stuff versus private internal clubby party stuff in the parties.