2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow To Defeat Gerrymandering Right Now in One Easy Step
Per David Brin:
Except in a few blessed states where citizens rebelled, the politicians have rigged electoral maps so you're in district that's overwhelmingly either democratic or republican. This is why especially GOP office holders only care about primaries and their radical base, not the average citizen. But this scheme will fall apart if all the democrats in a republican-gerried district simply re-register as republicans! (Or vice versa in Dem-gerried districts.)
What will you lose? Nothing. In fact, you may get a giggle out of shocking your friends with your official party ID!
It does not commit you to that party's agenda. It merely allows you to vote in the only contest that matters, the primary.
And suddenly, you gain clout! You might make a difference between (say) two republicans, one of them a screeching dogma-harpy and the other a somewhat reasonable Goldwater-type who believes in science and pragmatism, along with a creative free market. Even if you disagree with the latter candidate over a million matters, she or he is more likely to negotiate. And possibly even listen to folks like you. Heck, if enough folks follow your lead and re-register, that might encourage the Goldwater types to step up.
Brin also suggests some long-term solutions, such as going to court and putting initiatives on the ballot. But as a short-term solution until that's done, this is something we can do right now to nullify the worst effects of gerrymandering. We just need to make a concerted and organized effort.
avebury
(10,952 posts)way you can have any hope from promoting change in an ultra red state.
People b4 profits
(25 posts)Rather than trying to get "reasonable" rethugs nominated (like there is any such thing), a better strategy would be to nominate the most radical rightist possible and then gut their ass in the general election.
The system is rigged against us, just like the financial system.
Sabotaging it is the only logical response.
By any means necessary.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)that's how Todd Akin got through his primaries McCaskill attacked his more moderate opponents. But he was leading in the polls until he rape comments. It may not be so easy to gut them in the general.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)So I suspect the proposed solution wouldn't be all that successful.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Of course in NJ most of the major nominees (down to the county level) are decided at conventions, but I could not bring myself to vote in a GOP primary.
If I lived in a state with open primaries I would probably have to vomit afterwards if I voted in a GOP primary.
JoeFH
(12 posts)I realize this is an older thread, but I believe it to be still relevant.
I live in a district that has no hope of electing a democrat despite 43% being democrat voters. The GOP has rigged this district beyond hope and I don't have to tell you that as an activist its quite depressing.
I agree that switching parties to vote the most moderate candidate possible is a good idea except for one thing. Often in a gerrymandered rigged districts the idea is to protect the incumbent. Consequently, they'll often have only one guy running unless of course he's being primaried from the right. Which obviously does us no good as our goal is to move away from the fire breathing extremists.
Democrats that elect to do this need to do more. They also need to float a candidate to challenge the conservative with more moderate views. Not exactly easy to do under the best of circumstances. It would require democrats to team up with GOP moderates to overpower the hard-right conservative. Which of course would take a lot of planning (and cooperation) as well as a large number of Dems. And moreover, it's a safe bet that GOP won't be friendly to the effort to say the least.
Next best thing would be a independent moderate.