And the following comment at Politico.com made me even more convinced. Fact is that 7% of Clinton voters in IN said they would vote for McCain over Clinton in the general election, which obviously means they are voting strategically in order to hurt Obama. Here's the comment:

I may club the next reporter who whimpers about Republican voters rather than McCain voters.
1. Go to CNN and look at the exit polls for NC and IN.
2. Check how many Clinton voters choose McCain over Clinton, and how many Obama voters choose McCain over Obama. In both cases this is 7% of Clinton voters and 2% of Obama voters.
3. Subtract McCain voters from the totals. Using 50% for each in IN, we have Clinton 51-3.5 = 47.5; Obama 49-1 = 48.

That is an Obama victory except for the effect of voters who would choose McCain over either candidate in November. Yes, she won the state. But she absolutely, by these numbers, did it with McCain voters showing up to support her. In NC subtracting McCain voters from each side would open up his win to 22 points, close to what we saw in similar states when the Republicans had a contested race.

Posted By: Deborah | May 07, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Operation Chaos in full effect!!!!

I tease, but really I find it funny. Not because of the effect on the Democratic primary, but because if the shoe were on the other foot, most folks complaining about it would be just fine with the practice. You, as an analyst, are looking at it without emotion. But you should listen to Sirius Left for an afternoon -- the hysterics there are HILARIOUS!

I think it attempts to undermine democracy, it's despicable. I would NEVER participate with pissing on democracy.

How does it undermine democracy?

Not sure I follow that. If allowing crossover voting is a problem, why not do closed primaries?

Oh, theres nothing wrong with it, nope, nothing at all... TOTALLY ethical! lol

sheesh

The drugs told the fat bastard to concoct this hair brained scheme. Hannity is crying in his beer as we speak. :)

Okay, sarcastically repeating the fact that you object to it doesn't answer the question.

What's unethical about it? It's their vote -- why can't they cast it for who they want?

We all know Democrats have never done any crossover voting.
They are waaaay above that. ;)

(exactly.....)

I'm thinking we have a democrat here who did some crossover voting to get McKinney out of office.

(exactly......)

It`s the American way..

Huh? How could a Democrat cross over to get rid of McKinny? That's not gaming the vote, that would be voting for the stronger candidate.

The question is -- why is it undemocratic. Democratic means YOU vote for the candidate YOU choose.

It does NOT mean you vote for the candidate you want in office. If it did, I'd vote Libertarian EVERY time.

Most people at some time or another vote for one candidate to keep another out. Why is that called "not wasting your vote" if it is a major party candidate of the OTHER party as the candidate you want to keep out, but "gaming the vote" if it is for a major party candidate of the SAME party as the candidate you want to keep out?

Because its NOT who they want. doh!
They are trying to select their opponent.

Don't act like a grade schooler, you know it's wrong.

I have NEVER cast a vote for anyone I did not want to win.
I will never purchase a panthers shirt because I'm a falcons fan.

Maybe everyone does not use the same standard, but when I have voted Libertarian it's because I wanted them in office. When I have voted Dem it's because I wanted that person in office. The few times I have voted Republican was because I wanted THAT person in office.

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

It's more analagous to being a Falcons fan, or coach actually, and in preseason having your defense tank it against the other team's QB who you WANT to face in the regular season so he wins the starting job against the guy you DON'T want to face.

THen youd make a poor politician. The entire process is about compromise and picking the lesser of evils. If you put all your support behind one candidate, your likely frustrated and disillusioned by February.

That's not a correct analogy at all. I root for the Falcons because I LOVE the Falcons. So I NEVER want to see them "tank it."

I pull for politicians because they are less dirty (or dirty in ways that favor me more) than the next guy.

We know you love Obama, but that's an anomaly. It doesn't set the rule.

Acting like a grade schooler is telling me what I "know" just because you want me to agree with you.

No, it's not wrong AT ALL. It's your vote. Democracy means you cast it for who you wish, not that you HAVE to cast it for the person you want to win.

I can vote for Fred fucking Flintstone if I feel like it. That doesn't mean I honestly want Flintstone to win. Maybe I want to make a point. Or send a message. There is absolutely nothing wrong or "dirty" about that. You're just miffed because it hurts your candidate. That's fine, but it doesn't mean those doing it are dirty or undemocratic. They just don't like your guy, and they are expressing that dislike by voting for his opponent.

And I don't have a dog in that hunt, because I like Obama WAAAY more than Clinton, so I wouldn't vote for her over him in any event.

I'm not sure if it's kosher or not. BUT, it is certainly something that can be proven by statistical analysis AND an appropriate . . . even important consideration for the Super delegates.

I wasn't going to get into this thing, but I think a few simple questions are in order:

What is the fundamental purpose of a democratic system of government?
What is the purpose of political parties within that democratic system?
What is the purpose of a PARTY primary, and how do they serve democracy?

Finally, are you really going to argue that there is nothing "wrong AT ALL" with voting for politicians for any reason the individual wants whatsoever? Voting for a candidate because he has the best hair is just fine, because after all "democracy means you cast it for who you wish"?

Again, what is the purpose of a party primary, and why does allowing members of one party to decide the nominee of the other party pose a problem for democracy? It's an easy enough argument, but I don't think you're making it.

If the objection is that Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary, there are ways to get around that. As one example, if it "poses a problem for democracy," then lets end the practice of allowing ANYONE to vote without first pledging allegience to the party. At the very least, require that if you vote in a Republican or Democratic primary, that you must vote for that same party's candidate if you vote in the general.

Of course, THAT "poses problems for democracy" too, doesn't it?

And I ask again -- what problem is posed for democracy by allowing the voter to cast his vote for whomever he chooses? What is undemocratic about that?

Good questions, all. If the purpose of the PARTY primary is to allow the PARTY to choose its nominee, why do we allow NON-PARTY members to vote in the primary?

Perhaps independents should be completely selected out of the primary process? I know that's not what you're SAYING, but that's where you're HEADED.

ABSOLUTELY!

That's a fundamental weakness of democracy, but on what basis do you say that someone should NOT be allowed to cast their vote for whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish? Hell, I'm the elitist here and *I* don't argue with that proposition. At the very least, my solutions for it (requiring the voter to write in the name of the candidate and his/her party affiliation) do not alter the right of the voter to vote for John Edwards on the basis of his $2,000 hairdo.

Aw hell, neither of them are online now so I'll just answer my own questions...

The purpose of democracy is to provide popular input into government policy. That is done by giving citizens a CHOICE between decision-makers. That CHOICE allows citizens to punish poor performance, reward good performance, or to decide on which direction the public wants government to take.

Too many choices can confuse voters, especially when the choices do not represent clear-cut policy programs. For instance, if you have three conservatives, two liberals, and two libertarians on the ticket, then the choice among the seven candidates is not about policy. Instead, conservatives split their vote according to personality characteristics and other things not related to their policy preferences. Parties provide alternative POLICY choices to voters by running a single candidate under the party banner. So the Republican nominee will differ (to a greater or lesser extent) from the Democratic nominee, and voters can therefore use the party label to hold politicians accountable for good/poor performance.

Yes, personality characteristics are still part of voters' decision-making, but the point is that parties clarify the choices for voters by running a single candidate under the party's banner, which represents (again to a greater or lesser degree) that party's policy platform as an alternative to the opposition party (or parties).

The purpose of a party primary is to choose which candidate will best represent the party in the general election. Crossover strategic voting to choose a fatally flawed candidate or one that is too extreme or is otherwise weak dilutes the CHOICE given to voters in the general elections. The choice becomes a strong Republicans versus an unacceptable Democrat, nullifying the ability of voters to choose between alternative policy platforms. That lack of choice means that voters have less control over government policy and are less able to hold government accountable. That negates the purpose of democracy by limiting the range of acceptable choices, and in the extreme case it gives citizens only one viable choice of policy programs, which means that citizens really have no control over government policy. In other words, it weakens democracy.

No doubt about that at all. My only dog in this hunt is the suggestion that somehow people who are crossover voting are somehow subverting democracy.

We set up the system. They are just playing under the rules as they are set up. And again, it's not like it doesn't happen on both sides. I remember a ton of Democrats voting in the Republican primary when Newt was in office, as one recent example.

Hillary Clinton is an "unacceptable Democrat?????"

I mean, *I* think so, but I'm pretty sure most DEMOCRATS don't think so.

Actually, I WOULD exclude Independents from the primary selection process. Parties are for selecting the best nominee to run under the party's banner, and Independents by definition are not representatives of the party. The whole primary selection process is actually a bad way to select the nominee. Caucuses are better in the sense that you tend to filter out the idle and less aware voters and gauge the preferences of people who care most about the party.

I'm not saying that people should be banned from voting for stupid reasons. I'm saying that it's perfectly acceptable to call those reasons stupid and dangerous for democracy. In the case of crossover voting, we should prohibit it from occurring by forcing people to register for a party several months prior to the next primary. We don't because too many people have this misguided sense that the mass public has a right to meddle in the party's nomination process. People cry "democracy" when they're not allowed to participate in internal party matters, ignoring the harm that such meddling does to democracy by blurring the choices between parties in the general election.

It's a matter of degrees. She is (arguably) less acceptable than Obama, or at least that is what GOPers were hoping when they voted for her. Either that, or they are hoping that both candidates attack each other, making whichever nominee emerges less acceptable.

Whichever, the result is a dilution of the choice available to the public in the general election. The purpose of crossover voting is to win the general election by nominating an unelectable alternative, thus bypassing the entire general election (e.g., democratic) process.

(cynic)

Requiring Democrats to register months in advance of the primary would "harm the poor." They need to be allowed to vote without any undue hardship.

Haven't you heard?

(/cynic)

Seriously, I don't have a problem with what you suggest. My point is that given the CURRENT system, what these folks are doing is not "undemocratic." Don't set up a system that allows this and then cry foul when people take advantage of it. There are ways to stop it if that's what we want to do.

I'd argue that allowing too much party control over primaries would polarize the candidates. I don't think it would work well in our system. Maybe in a parliamentary system, but not in a 2-party democratic system. You'd basically be stuck with a party hack for 4 years. In fact, I'd argue that despite the crossover voting, you may be getting the 2 candidates with the broadest appeal in decades this election cycle. That's a good thing.

And it's not working, so why all the bitching about it?

I don't think Obama's been weakened one iota.

And I think the media feeding frenzy surrounding the Democratic nomination has done far more damage to BOTH candidates than any crossover voting.

It is working. Clinton is in this race only because she won Indiana, which she would not have won had it not been for crossover voting. Without the crossovers, she would have lost and dropped out yesterday.

Party leaders want to win the general election, too. They will balance electability against the ideological concerns. If they put up a party hack then the other party wins the general, which they avoid by putting up someone who is more acceptable to the general public. If both parties keep putting up party hacks then new parties emerge to replace one or both of the current parties.

Offering a clear choice doesn't always mean offering two polar extremes. It means not muddying the general election by manipulating the choice to include a candidate who is unappealing for personal reasons or who is otherwise unacceptable to the mass public. You can have two strong center-left/center-right candidates offering clear policy alternatives.

Cross over voting is nothing new and both sides have done it. Quit frankly, Limbaughs operation chaos has worked as in weakening Obama and Clinton. The national media would have never asked questions or stirred the pot like this and if McCain even hints at asking a question of either he's automatically branded a racist or a bigot or anti female. This has worked great. Everyone knows how dirty the Clintons are and Politics is not a gentle game. Now, Obama has been exposed and Hillary defeated for Ever. I love it, although I don't like McCain.

We may not agree that much but I agree with you. I find it detestable that people are allowed to try and hijack essentially one party'd candidate to cherrypick their opponent. Its not cool.