“When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for [the] Republican.” - Mitt Romney in a February 18, 2007, ABC News interview.
From conservative Dixiecrats to liberal RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), every party has members who disagree with the official party platform. There is something disturbing, however, about a person who joins a political party for the express purpose of undermining it.
Sadly, Ohio’s election laws will allow otherwise upstanding Ohio voters to do just exactly that during the March 2012 primary election.
Ohio technically has a “closed” primary system, meaning that you cannot vote in a party’s primary election unless you are a registered member of that party. However, this requirement is virtually meaningless, since you can change your registration at the polling place on the day of the election by simply requesting the ballot of your new party.
If your request to change parties is challenged, you must sign a statement declaring that you “desire to be affiliated with and support the principles of the political party” represented on the ballot. There is no legal definition of what this statement means.
However, if an Ohio voter were to admit that he or she changed parties for the sole purpose of electing the party’s weakest possible candidate in the primary election, the voter probably would be guilty of voter fraud (a felony under Ohio Revised Code 3599.36).
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections occasionally has threatened to prosecute voters who “maliciously” change party affiliations during a primary election, but so far as I can tell, it has never followed through on this threat.
Now before I draw angry complaints from the Romney supporters in Northeast Ohio, let me hasten to say that Mr. Romney did NOT break any election laws in Massachusetts when he voted in the Democratic Party primaries. Massachusetts has an open primary system, and Mr. Romney was legally entitled to vote in the Democratic primary, regardless of where his actual political sympathies lay. I am not questioning the legality of his actions, only the motivation.
The problem of malicious cross-voting is not restricted to any one party. For example, since the Democratic presidential primary is irrelevant this year, some Democrats could be tempted to vote in the Republican primary in an attempt to nominate a weak Republican candidate. I can’t help wondering how Mr. Romney would feel if he were to lose Ohio based on votes from cross-over Democrats.
Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for switching parties for a primary election. There is nothing wrong with a voter changing parties, if the motive is to get the party to run a better candidate in the general election. The entire country benefits when voters get to choose between the best candidates that the parties have to offer.
However, letting a person vote in a party’s primary for the sole purpose of hurting the party goes against the fundamental concept of a fair and honest election. As the State Legislature considers new laws to prevent voter fraud, this is one of the issues that it needs to address.
Have a question or a suggestion for a topic? Contact Dennis at dspirgen@aol.com.
Patch posts are general discussions and should not be used as advice on any specific legal matter. If you need legal advice on a particular situation, please consult an attorney.
thank you. Just to let you know that in the Political Circles that I travel in it is well known that if I get wind of any shenanigans of this nature going on I will oppose them and will expose them if they go forward. I have not had to yet. This type of subversion of the electoral process has no place anywhere and anyone involved needs to meet up with Criminal Justice System.
The fact is, as much as people (esp. right wingers) love to scream "fraud" every time a democrat or democratic issue is passed, they have no solid and substantiated evidence to support there's been widespread fraud. There will always be ISOLATED (key word) pockets of misconduct/fraud, but there are Republicans guilty of it as much as the Dems. Like Newt Gringrich's claim recently in his own campaign and Mitt Romney, as this story states -- and he's been criticized as such by conservatives.
These were not just two people but, two former highly positioned administrators of the Oakland Co. Democratic Party. "The fact is, as much as people (esp. right wingers) love to scream "fraud" every time a democrat or democratic issue is passed, they have no solid and substantiated evidence to support there's been widespread fraud." I agree, and Democrats have exactly as much for their unsubstantiated charges. Patrick met me half way on this, will you be as honest?
I agree with you that the Dems' claims are unsubstantiated as well. We saw the Dems claiming that after the 2000 election and the whole "hanging chad" fiasco & everything else involved leading up to an extremely embarrassing chapter in American history that the Presidency had to be determined by SUPCO. Plus, you did have some questionable decisions made along the lines calling into conflict of interest issues, etc., as it was later determined). But over the last few years (esp. since the election of BHO), one of the main battle cries by right-wingers is fraud (from the President being a fraud to the the widespread voting rolls being juiced w/fake names to get him elected (which were unfounded), etc. Plus, as we're finding out with the Cuyahoga County corruption trial going on here in Akron, there were some fraudulent campaigns run in Cuyahoga County. I do believe there is malicious cross-voting going on (remember when Rush was encouraging that in the 2008 election?), but proving the INTENT is rather difficult. I remember the Jane Platten (Cuy Co. BOE Dir.) being asked this issue and she said it would be very difficult to prove the malicious intent (unless someone was bouncing back and forth every election or something like that, then I could see it come into question). I also agree wholeheartedly w/your response to Patrick. It's quite a shame how such a basic right -- voting -- has become the issue it has become.
It seems that we have a dialog going instead of a diatribe; that is as cool as I can imagine. Getting back to the subject of malicious voting, I really can't see it as such. Each registered voter has one vote in every election, no one except that voter has the right to determine how that vote is cast. I am comfortable with the present system to the point that I think correcting this "problem" might be a cure worse than the disease, and that doesn't even broach the possibilities of unintended consequences. On this issue I go with the maxim " better ten malicious ballots be cast than one legitimate party cross-over be denied. See my reply to Ms. Schinker to see my "Real World" take on this issue.
Yours is perhaps the the most honest and pertinent reply to this issue. Be Warned all Malicious Cross Voters. You will be identified in Public Voter Rolls as a registered member of that party until you can change that status in the next PRIMARY election. Not in the next election but in the next PRIMARY election. You will open yourselves to the legal "slings and arrows of outrageous political literature and phone solicitations" with no legal recourse available to you to block them. It's "political speech" and given extra protections. Internet searches on your name will reveal this Political Affiliation. And your name will be prized above others for you are "A New and untapped Name". And this is why neither party discourages cross-voting.
First, Patch requires you to use your actual first and last name. Might want to fix your account or they will suspend it. Second, I don't feel that the article is a "thinly veiled" suggestion at all. That's like saying that talking about sex with teens makes them want to have it. On the contrary, burying our heads in the sand about an issue makes it no less of an issue (just less transparent). I am with you on the "independent voter disenfranchisement" however - and the fact that the system is broken. The two party system has devolved into each party against the other at all costs. Sadly, it sometimes feels like "We, the People" have very little influence anymore. (I think THAT is the real message of the Occupy movement!) I keep waiting for a viable 3rd party to arise, but of course the two established parties will do everything they can to keep another player out of the game. Optimist that I am, I still believe that enough principled individuals, working together, CAN change the system. Maybe the disorganized independent vote is the best 3rd party we can expect.
Debbie Schinker is correct in stating that I am not encouraging anyone, Republican or Democrat, to engage in malicious cross-voting. My point is that ANY party can suffer from this tactic, so it is the best interest of EVERY party to find a way to stop it.
As tempting as it is to keep the GOP fighting all the way to the convention, as a Democrat this primary is important since we need to decide who our candidate will be for congressperson to face -- wait for it -- Joe the Plumber or Some Real Estate Guy! Both Kucinich and Kaptur good candidates and I'm still undecided here.
Hmmmmm...... Wonder who wants voter suppression? hmmmmm........ Gee! Wonder who's running scared? Hmmmmmmmm
I agree about Kucinich and Kaptur. Also about Joe the "anyone can run with no qualifications" Plummer.
a slim resume of achievements and experience can take you all the way to the top. Witness our President.
No one has experience to BE the president No matter who was president,with a congress of bitter acts of intended revenge, and,and no action who WOULD get anything done? ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
will your disdain also follow those states that have Democratic Majorities and are disenfranchising and suppressing Republican voters? If you research it you will find that it IS there.
Wha? Defend this post or delete it.
Protecting big business instead of having concern of the American people.
"Big Business" (and Small Business for that matter) employ how many people? They pay for the benefits that how many people enjoy? They create the ongoing wealth that sustains our government. How many family sustaining paychecks has the "Occupy" movement written (and had funds to pay on)? Yes, I want my elected representatives to "occupy" themselves in facilitating the lifeblood of civilization. When you can supply yourself with all the benefits that big business allows you to access at a reasonable cost and supply my family's needs then I will listen to your "revenge" nonsense.
You believe what you want and I will believe in what I want to believe in. No matter what is said or who says it, your mind is made up and not opened to others opinions and or ideas. Have a good day! Like I said in a pevious post, actions speak louder than words to the American people.
the fact is you display as much open mindedness as you credit me with, or less. Do you admit this possibility?
Who are you in support of....really? We are totally off subject....... With this I'm done here.
The editors/moderators have no reservation about pulling posts & cite violation of TOS, but yet keep posts by people who clearly can not read and comprehend & insist on not being mature/adult enough to use their ACTUAL first and last names. For goodness sakes, in another story, you have the "Paul-bots" (as I call them) simply using a letter for their 'name.' You can't unilaterally enforce one TOS vigorously (which you do) and let one slide (well, you can, but it would make it no better than the forums at cleveland dot com or ohio dot com, where people can make ridiculous comments behind a ridiculous alias/name).
I review both sides of the coin and are opened to new and intelligent ideas. Flexibility is key to making wise decisions.
I have done that.
you possess something rare and curious, a one sided coin.