Thousands of voters changed registration in Lauren Boebert's district, some just to vote against her

Originally published at: Thousands of voters changed registration in Lauren Boebert's district, some just to vote against her | Boing Boing


We have some real wackadoodles running in my district here in Michigan, I’ve thought about voting in the primary for the one guy, while still republican, is a normal politician.

I don’t think my district will elect a democrat but I would love to make sure we don’t get a total nut job.


As much as I like anything that makes BoBo’s exit from public life more likely, I don’t like this tactic.

If it works to oust a Republican that the Democrats don’t like, then it will work the other way too.

And, FWIW, I also think anyone who wants to participate in guiding a party (e.g., primaries) should join the party… or at least bring a bag of ice (depending on the party).


In Michigan, and other states, you do not have to declare a party affiliation but you can only vote in one party for the primary.

All is fair in politics. Look at all the dirty tricks the republicans are up to when it comes to voting and redistricting. It’s time to beat them at their own game.

A lot of the reason these wackadoodles are getting voted in is because the democrats refuse to play their game.

It’s time.


Who do you think invented it?


Rush Limbaugh called it “Operation Chaos,” didn’t he?


Registering your part affiliation should not be an option at all. If you want to vote in a parties’ primaries you should join the party.


In my opinion it’s all about getting the right person in office and if I can’t do that I will consider doing whatever it takes to keep the nuts out of office.

We have one wackadoodle that wants to make contraception illegal and impose God’s moral order.

I would lose no sleep over screwing with their primary if it kept people like her out of office.


Yeah, I get it. You’ve got to work with the system you’ve got. Its just a shame your system is so poor.


The problem is that locking in your vote in advance doesn’t allow you to change course should you manage to actually learn along the way.

Since there are very few good alternatives, I’m all for minimizing the worst options in the first round. By voting in the opposing primary, I miss the opportunity to point out my preferences among other people I generally agree with, in order to have a shot at removing the worst option that people I don’t agree with at all might force on me. That seems like quite a bargain.

Here in Texas, there are a lot of very very bad options, and taking the worst of them off the ticket is a public service.


In parliamentary systems, where parties are part of the formal structure of government, this (“entryism”) is an established idea. But it’s more of a boogeyman than a thing that actually happens, because it doesn’t work – when you try to abuse an undemocratic system, that system will find undemocratic ways to thwart you.

I wouldn’t discourage anyone from trying it, but if this effort succeeded in getting rid of whatsername, I bet it would only be because it replaced her with someone the GOP establishment preferred. If people tried to elect a socialist in her place, the party would certainly use procedural fuckery to shut that down.

Not all states even have party primaries at all

Party primaries are the mechanism the Trumpists used to take over the GOP, and just that by itself is enough of a reason to abolish them


Realistically, if you live in a riding/province that leans 80% Conservative, your best bet is to vote in the only election that means a damn. If you can’t vote for the good, you can vote for the least offensive Tory.


This feels like it should probably be illegal and is abusing the system… but considering how incredibly broken that system must already be to get people like Boebert into positions of power, fuck it. Fixing it and playing fair and honest can wait until the nation isn’t teetering on the edge of becoming a fascist theocracy. The Republicans certainly won’t be giving any quarter in the meantime.


That’s how it is in other countries. Because that makes sense. A primary isn’t some sort of pre-election for the public, it’s the party deciding (by whatever means they deem appropriate) which candidate to put forward in an election to represent them.


You have a two party system there - you are saying that only party members get to decide who is going to be voted for in the general election. Seems to be taking away democratic choice from anyone who doesn’t want to sign up.


But it can’t be on the parties to compensate for the lack of democracy in the voting system. They are free to choose their candidates however they want. Only once they’re on the ballot does the public decide.


What would be your preferred method of selecting candidates? Or ist that selection even unnecessary?

Then if the party decides to have everyone vote about it, that is perfectly acceptable, isn’t it?

Well, they already took democratic choices away from those who did sign up for another party, which is also a problem, two-party system or not.

It is. It just seems weird to me and I think @PartTimeZombie’s point was that it isn’t a God given right or even a part of the voting system.


Thanks, I get it now.

It’s not a part of the voting system. But that is more of a flaw of the voting system, I guess. Those who decide who’s on the ballot decide who doesn’t get to be elected. If Bernie’s not on the ballot, you can only vote for Hillary or for the orange turd.

Well, it appears that democracy turned out to be much more complex that a couple of guys 250 years ago could ever imagine. :slight_smile: