So...what I'm getting is that I should choose one of the big 2, so that I can vote in the primary. But, then I'm counted as one of the big 2's registered voters in Kentucky, which is used for leverage, and I really don't want to give either of them even my passive support. Shamrock fan, I wish they were as well. I think it really probably hurts voter turnout in some areas of Kentucky.

WHy don't you move to Cincinnati. Ohio doesn't care who votes in their primaries! :banana:

As I said, you can tell everyone you're an Independent or you can participate in the process.

Being an Independent doesn't mean you are removed from the process. It just means you don't choose to align yourself with a particular party. Nothing wrong with that.

But, then I'm counted as one of the big 2's registered voters in Kentucky, which is used for leverage, and I really don't want to give either of them even my passive support.

 

I agree with that. For me it would be this versus how much you care about participating in the primaries.

Being an Independent doesn't mean you are removed from the process. It just means you don't choose to align yourself with a particular party. Nothing wrong with that.

 

It means that you are not part of the process of selecting the candidates that will square off in November. You have left that decision up to others. At least in most states.

 

Of course an independent can vote in the general election, as can anyone. That's why I see no benefit from not voting in the primaries other than to make a statement.

Of course an independent can vote in the general election, as can anyone. That's why I see no benefit from not voting in the primaries other than to make a statement.

I don't see it as making a statement at all. In fact, it's just the opposite.

I don't see it as making a statement at all. In fact, it's just the opposite.

 

How so? What benefit is there to being an independent other than to protest the path the two established parties have taken?

I agree with you rockmom on being one of the big two registered voters, but if I was not registered Democratic I would never get to vote on my local elections. Because the county judge, clerks are all usually determined in the primary because we don't have Republican run. It is happing a little more often that used to be.

How so? What benefit is there to being an independent other than to protest the path the two established parties have taken?

You seem to think there's something shameful or hypocitical about being an Independent -- and of course, there isn't. It's a choice. And that's what democracy is all about.

I put register republican, but thats mainly because where I live I would encourage everyone to register republican because most of our local elections are decided in the republican primary. Very rarely does a democrat win a local election in our area in November.

I voted! :lol:

You seem to think there's something shameful or hypocitical about being an Independent -- and of course, there isn't. It's a choice. And that's what democracy is all about.

 

I said nothing of the sort. She asked for an opinion and I gave one. Because I don't necessary have the same one you do that means I think it's shameful or hypocritical? Who's being undemocratic now?

But, then I'm counted as one of the big 2's registered voters in Kentucky, which is used for leverage

 

Explain "leverage".

I said nothing of the sort. She asked for an opinion and I gave one. Because I don't necessary have the same one you do that means I think it's shameful or hypocritical? Who's being undemocratic now?

You clearly implied it (looks nice on BGP...serves no practical function...pick a party and take part). No problem though. Just a little silly to criticize someone for their choice of party...or non-choice. :lol:

Explain "leverage".

 

 

"Republicans have ____ registered voters in Kentucky", or "Democrats have ____ registered voters in Kentucky. Common argument when deciding what party is the strongest in Kentucky.

 

As for choosing a side to take part...In the end, in a democracy, shouldn't I be able to vote without being a part of a major party? Could the solution be to allow Kentucky Voters the right to vote in the primary regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican, or Independent, or Libertarian, or whatever else? I mean, at least the people obviously care enough to vote, or they wouldn't register. I don't think they should be forced to align themselves with the Democratic or Republican parties to do so.

"Republicans have ____ registered voters in Kentucky", or "Democrats have ____ registered voters in Kentucky. Common argument when deciding what party is the strongest in Kentucky.

 

As for choosing a side to take part...In the end, in a democracy, shouldn't I be able to vote without being a part of a major party? Could the solution be to allow Kentucky Voters the right to vote in the primary regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican, or Independent, or Libertarian, or whatever else? I mean, at least the people obviously care enough to vote, or they wouldn't register. I don't think they should be forced to align themselves with the Democratic or Republican parties to do so.

I don't think this is a good solution. A party should be able to decide its candidate without interference from outsiders. Thanks to Republican voters who crossed party lines to vote, Hillary was able to win Ohio. If you're not registered with a party, then I don't think you should get to vote for that party's candidate.