 | | Re: Quiet in here —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) If I remember correctly, the California primaries are simultaneous -- every candidate for every party is run on the same ballot. So potential sabateours (sp?) have to choose between knocking down the opposing party, and building up their own (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) Yes and no. We can vote for any candidate for any party, but only votes from party members count towards the delegates. Anyone who wants to have their vote for McCain (or Bush) actually mean something had better register as a Republican. Bruce (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) up (...) the (...) the (...) vote (...) I've never registered under a party, btw--is that registration permanent (unless voluntarily changed), or does it have to be reinstated each election term? Or does that vary from state to state? (I know (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) In California, you remain a member of your party until you re-register. I don't know if it varies from state to state, it probably can, but I don't know if it actually does. California is a winner-take-all state: you win by one vote, you get (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Susan Hoover
|
| | | | | | | | (...) In Texas, the system is very simple. There is no "register under a party." You just register to vote, period. The registration is good for two years and automatically renews. You can register by mail, by picking up and filling a simple form (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | There's a Mugwump party? What's their platform? :-) Yahoo came up dry when I searched on Mugwump... (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) and (...) Idunno if they actually went by that name or if that was what everyone called them. It refers to fence-sitting on issues: their "mug" was on one side of the fence, and their "wump" on the other. In any case, I was a registered (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) the (...) Found this: mugwump from Algonquin 'chief' In US political history, a colloquial name for the reform Republicans who voted in the 1884 presidential election for Grover Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, rather than for the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Matthew Wilkins
|
| | | | | | In Oregon you have to declare your political party when you register... Greenback is still a recognized party, even if it puts "Independant" on my Oregon Voter's card. -The Cheese (...) the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Quiet in here —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) Well, speaking as a veteran, I'd rather have someone in office who knows firsthand what the real consequences of armchair warfare are for real soliders. I'd value the leadership that a retired general could bring to the office but I'd also (...) (24 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
