Well, I just realized that Tuesday was the last day to register to vote or to change one’s party affiliation in advance of California’s presidential primary. So, it’s Democrat–my current registration, more or less by default1–for me. I had considered re-registering Green, and may still do so, but it won’t be in time for the presidential primary. I had also considered re-registering Decline to State, but that would only have broadened my options to include the American Independent (in addition to Democrat), and there is noting at all “broad” about the American Independent party.2
I rather like the idea of being a dues paying member of one party3 while being legally able to participate in the nominating primary of another–I suppose that is a very American form of political party participation!
Besides, I have only a weak preference among the Green pre-candidates, and have mixed feelings about whether the party–yes, my party–should even run a presidential candidate.4 But if I vote for President in November, that vote will almost certainly be for the Green Party nominee,5 whoever it is–a party, not a personal vote. So, why bother to vote in a primary when you are almost indifferent as to whom it nominates (or even if it nominates anyone)?
Anyway, for those who will be voting in the Green presidential primary, be sure to listen to the recent pre-candidates’ debate. And also be informed that the most recognizable name in US Green politics is on your ballot, but at least as of now, is not an announced pre-candidate.6
Regarding the Green debate, I mostly agree with the review by Wes of California Greening.
So, I still have about two weeks to pick a pre-candidate from our–I mean, their–wonderful field.7
_______
Epilogue: The list of parties not qualified for ballot status in the state, but seeking it, is rather interesting. Entertaining, even: I am particularly intrigued by the We Like Women and Science Party.
________
- Certainly not by any meaningful standard of “party identification.” [↩]
- If you are unaffiliated and were hoping to vote for a Republican candidate on 5 February, too late! But you can still vote for Obama, or any other Democrat–or an AI candidate. [↩]
- I joined the Green Party some months ago. Money where mouth is, and all that. [↩]
- But therein lies an inherent problem with presidentialism for minor parties: In such an institutional structure, you are pretty much nowhere as a party if you forgo a candidacy for the most visible office. Yet running a presidential candidate has serious risks for a party with no serious chance to win the office, and I am not talking about the “spoiler” charge; I am talking about the danger of personalizing a party that, by its very size and nature, strives to be a programmatic alternative. See, it is true: It isn’t easy being Green! [↩]
- Safe state under the absurd Electoral College system, and all that. [↩]
- In fact, of the seven pre-candidates listed, I believe only four are actually currently active: Johnson, McKinney, Mesplay, and Swift. [↩]
- No, still not convinced on Obama. Still about where I was at the end of 2007. [↩]
Off the cuff, I can think of two reasons one would vote in a party’s primary despite being indifferent about that party’s nominee.
One, the voter wants to affect the general election result while registering support for a third party. If the primary is competitive but the statewide general election outcome predictable, he might express a preference among frontrunners while intending to vote for a minor party in the general election.
Two (and strictly theoretically) the voter may want to affect the match-up between his preferred minor party candidate and whomever the major party puts forward.
Seed planted by Jack — 23 January 2008 @ 01:28
Just to be clear, since Jack was kind enough to care…
I am not indifferent among the Democratic candidates at all. It is just that my preference ordering (based on proximity to my ideal points on policy dimensions that matter most to me) is essentially a perfect reversal of the order in which the five still active are ranked in delegates or nomination probability! And I will vote in that party’s primary, but on which dimension of (sincere!) preference, I am undecided.
I am almost indifferent on the Green Party’s candidates, but likely to vote in the general for whoever it is (though I admit that McKinney and, only slightly less so, Nader, would make me feel not so good about doing so.
Seed planted by MSS — 23 January 2008 @ 15:45
I just learned that the New York Times endorsed Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
It’s increasingly likely that she will get it, but it will be difficult, given that Republicans hate the Clintons very much, for the party to clinch the presidency and keep their hold on Congress.
Seed planted by Ren Aguila — 25 January 2008 @ 11:26
Ren, I do not think a Clinton candidacy puts either house at risk for her party, even if she loses to McCain (or whoever). A Clinton presidency, on the other hand, could put one or the other house at greater risk in 2010 than another Democrat would.
By the way, the NYT also endorsed McCain, with some strongly worded rebukes to the candidacy of Giuliani.
Seed planted by MSS — 25 January 2008 @ 18:49
Ah yes, I actually enjoyed reading the McCain endorsement editorial much more than the Clinton one.
Your guess is likely–while I understand while the Times endorsed her (the old “safe hands” argument), I think it puts Democrats at risk in 2010. But given that Republicans are beginning to train their guns this early at Hillary Clinton, I think that, at the least, Democrats have to be careful about the Senate, where the majority is smaller, for this election.
Seed planted by Ren Aguila — 26 January 2008 @ 10:55
It would take a very dramatic–epic, maybe–change in the structural conditions underlying this election for the Democrats to fail to gain seats in the House and Senate. Those who follow such elections far closer than I do point to the pattern of retirements and open seats, as well as to which party is defending the greatest number of competitive seats. All of these factors point to +6 or better in the Senate and some gain as well in the House.
If McCain were to win, it would be on some combination of his personal reputation and voter discomfort with handing all the elected institutions to the Democrats (and, in particular, Clinton). I do not see how a McCain win (or any other Republican) fundamentally changes the congressional dynamic. I continue to believe that the Democrats’ chances of picking up still more seats in the Senate–and even their (not great) chances of breaking 60–would be better with Obama than Clinton. But failing to increase their majorities at least somewhat would require something really drastic changing between now and November. Always possible, but not likely.
Seed planted by MSS — 27 January 2008 @ 15:57