Party Registration

This is normally a big Republican issue, but its one that I am a huge fan of.  Why do we continue to deny our citizens the right to officially register with a political party? 

The House of Delegates voted it through, now it goes to the Senate.  The breakdown:

Northern Virginia Republicans: 8 Yes, 2 No
Northern Virginia Democrats:  5 Yes, 10 No, 1 Not Voting
Independents:  0 Yes, 3 No
Majority African American Districts:  2 Yes, 9 No, 1 Not Voting
White Majority Democratic Districts outside of NoVA:  3 Yes, 9 No
Republican Districts outside of NoVA:  42 Yes, 5 No

Does everybody on here agree that party registration should get a thumbs up?

Comments

[mr.redskins]

I think registering by party is a good idea...

How did Lurch vote?

[J. Sarge]

Interesting. It seems as though the House Committee adopted a substitute stripping this bill of the provision allowing parties to restrict their primaries to registered party voters.

In theory I like the idea of parties determining who can participate in their nomination contests. In theory, it is nobody's business but the party's who it decides to nominate.

In theory.

Redistricting being what it is, however, I cannot support a bill that limits access to party primaries. Often, that is the only game in town. If the Commonwealth were to adopt nonpartisan redistricting, then I think I would support closed primaries.

That is not the question at hand though. This is just about party registration. It certainly would make for more efficient campaigning, and that is probably a good thing, although I could be convinced otherwise.

I am troubled, however, by how this could play out on primary day. Imagine a Republican or independent guy, going up to vote in a Democratic primary, as is his right. The election official - a Democrat - asks to see a voter registration card. Upon seeing the (R), he tells the voter that he is not allowed to vote.

Of course, that is illegal. It may be happening already, but it cannot happen systematically because their is no proof of party on the card.

Am I being overly paranoid? What do others think about this scenario?

[J. Sarge]

There are 15 members in Senate P&E: 8 Rs and 7 Ds. Potts will vote against, I imagine, as have all the House independents. If the Ds vote in a bloc, the measure is dead. Devolites-Davis might not support it either.

What do y'all think the committee vote will be?

[Not Larry Sabato]

Good points J. Sarge.

Anon- Lurch voted No (shocker)

[Hanover Hooptie]

I tend to agree with J. Sarge.

Not everyone thinks in an "R" and "D" mode - I for one don't want to register for either party b/c both are equally distateful. I know I'm not alone in that view. However, I would like to at least have a say in what kind of candidate represents me, no matter what party they hail from.

As J. Sarge says, if redistricting makes one party ineffective, the 'only game in town' is the primary. Because I don't subscribe to one particular party, this billy only serves to strengthen party politics at the expense of democracy.

With partisans controlling redistricting and now possibly primaries, why are we taking a step backwards in voter participation?

How many candidates complained last spring about "crossover" votes that ultimately defeated them, preventing them from coasting into an unopposed November election? That smacks me as being childish and simply undemocratic.

I do recall learning about a great Virginia who just happened to be the Father of our Country and first president... I seem to remember him disliking political parties. I genuinely wonder why.

[GOPHokie]

What bill is this? I cant seem to find it.

Hugo

[Loverboy]

"Anon- Lurch voted No (shocker)"

Mr. Not the Larry:

Could you stay off issues like the Shocker? My googling keeps taking me here instead of other websites.

"Why do we continue to deny our citizens the right to officially register with a political party?"

Nice frame....but this isn't an "individual rights" issue. It's just a measure to strengthen the hand of ideologues and party bosses.

[Virginia Centrist]

Sorry, anon 1:49 was me

[A Voter]

I think that registering by party makes a lot of sense. It would of course make life easier on anyone campaigning on either side of the isle, and help elected officials to stay in touch with their base of supporters.

If you find Republicans to be "equally distateful" as Democrats, (as was stated above) then you should not be trying to vote in a Republican or Democrat primary to begin with.

I can't think of a better way to make sure the riff-raft stays out of the parties.

We need to make sure only kool-aid drinking, sheep following, non-thinkers are in the ranks. That way we can always control the votes.

What a great idea. This should shut out all original thought.

[Stephen]

I strongly oppose the idea of party registration. I find that it only makes for stronger parties, something I am opposed to. It would also create conditions for stronger party machines, which also seemes unhealthy for democracy. (Party machines are harder to operate down to the local level if you can't track whether a person is a registered R or D.)

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

I grew up in Pennsylvania where party registration was dominant, and all party nomination contests were closed to voters who were not members of the party, so I am totally used to it.

I see advantages and disadvatnages to both approaches. I particularly believe at this point in time, most Virginians would end up registering as independents.

Pretty interesting how far things have come since the Republicans took over the legislature. It wasn't that long ago that party wasn't even on the ballots...

[Freddie]

Party machines in Virginia are now so extraordinarily weak, that even with greatly strengthening them, they will still be weak.

[tpl]

Those who subscribe to the party decomposition thesis (a la Broder's "The Party's Over" or Putnam's "Bowling Alone"), articulate the view that party affiliation has dropped as an epiphenomenon of other societal forces, including redistricting as J. Sarge pointed out. As an aside, the real Sabato argues in his retort to Broder, “The Party’s Just Begun”, that party activity is on the rise, rather than the wane.

One might then argue that restricting the electorate by requiring party registration would have a depressing affect on voter turnout. While it might also be argued that those who vote in the primaries are the party faithful anyway, I would hazard a guess that this is perhaps overly cynical.

The trend in Virginia politics since the end of the Byrd era has been to topple barriers to voting, rather than erect them. Bills that seek to control the electorate, no matter how benign the intent, should be viewed with an extra-cautious eye by our democratic representatives, as well as the public at large. Such instruments naturally favor those who possess power. They alienate independent voters, who now cast the deciding vote in state-wide elections, and force new ideas to come from within the existing party structure, where they will most likely be drowned out by the entrenched elites.

One of Virginia’s advantages is that our approach to campaign finance has been to create more disclosure of gifts, creating increased public scrutiny, rather than restricting the source and amount, as has been the federal approach (McCain-Feingold). The federal "reforms" led to the rise of soft money and 527s, thereby emasculating a significant role of the party and empowering independent interest groups who seek to represent an active minority, where-as Virginians still enjoy a system that encourages deliberation within the umbrella of the party. We should be wary of tampering with the mechanisms which encourage broad participation in those parties, lest we open the door to many of the challenges faced by the national party organizations.

[Adam Sharp]

Opposed, opposed, opposed, but for other reasons. Actually, the lack of party registration STRENGTHENS the party machines. As a campaign manager last fall, I had 40,000 voters to sift through. The Dem's database showed me which had voted in 'R' primaries and 'D' primaries back to '93. So a simple query gave me lists of Dem-only, switch, R-only, etc. I could not have done that on my own without a lot of extra time, money and staff. I'm sure the Repubs have something similar.

I am opposed, however, because I think party membership should be an internal record, not a public record. Making it part of the voter registration makes it public. Also, this century will see the rise of more parties and independents. Party registration simply throws roadblocks in front of that, and then we'll have to go back and add registration for the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, etc. Let's keep it simple, and keep it the way it is.

[C. Winslow]

Sarge, do you know of a way to take the politics out of redistricting? Whether by judge, legislator, governor, or "non partisan" appointee, I don't think it can be done.

[Shaun Kenney]

Yes.

Emphatically.

[anon]

Just curious, does anyone care about the Constitutional right to freedom of association? Some of you may not like parties, but shouldn't the parties (private entities) have the right to elect their own nominees? Would you expect to be able to walk into a Lions Club meeting on the date of their annual meeting and vote in their election? Of course not, so why should you be able to do the same thing with the Democrat or Republican Party?

[nova-middle_man]

for the redistricting thing this might be a little old but its still interesting

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/redistrict/com&alter.htm

As far as party identification I say let the people decide. A person could register as a Democrat Republican or Independent or could leave party affliation blank.

It is also interesting to note the voter breakdowns that are somewhat partisan but not totally

NOVA dems 5 yay 10 ney

and Finally with the point of registering for the dominant party. I can imagine Rs registering as Ds in Blue areas and Ds registering as Rs in Red areas to vote in primaries which are actually "generals" in certain areas.

[Riley, Not O'Reilly]

The simplest way to do this would be have party registration -- choose R, D or remain Independent. Party primaries / nominating contests would be open to any registered party member AND anyone who is an Independent. (I'm not crazy about this myself, but it might be the only way to get this type of bill passed in VA.) Independents could vote in either the R or D primary, but not both. Voting in a party primary would not change an Independent voter to a registered party member and in the next primary they could once again decide between the two primaries.

Would that compromise be acceptible? (As I said, I'm not 100% thrilled by it, but it would be a step in the right direction.)

[Ben]

Okay, I have to ask. What ill or injustice are we righting by passing legislation to allow for party registration? Does anyone really think this is a worthwile use of the GA's time?
It seems to me that this is far more beneficial to parties and candidates than it is to voters. It will allow for restricted primaries and easier voter targeting, neither of which are going to make an individual voter happy.