|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 11 users and 63 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events 
|
|
|
OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Not an option
Submitted by rebecca on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:35pm.You have to sign a loyalty oath?
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:42pm.This seems like a major flaw in the system, both parties should have unified primaries or caucuses in order to eliminate confusion and to close up loopholes like this.
It's only confusing for a few people Rob
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:48pm.wow
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:54pm.Ah, but this raises questions, questions
Submitted by rebecca on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 5:37pm.How does this fit in with your anarchist side? I recall having a discussion with your on a different thread where you didn't even support voting. Have you changed your mind? Is this another, "if you must vote . . ." scenario? Or are you just bringing up the question for discussion?
Do you advocate caucusing Democrat and voting Republican?
legal?
Submitted by rebecca on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:51pm.I think that closing up the loophole is a large part of what they are trying to do with the "loyalty oath".
As far as whether it's legal, if you feel your rights are being violated, feel free to take it to court and tell me how it turns out. It is what our state government is doing. I think it's "legal" at least as far as the Revised Code of Washington is concerned. As far as the U.S. Constitution? Well, that's another question.
Secretary of State
Submitted by rebecca on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 5:14pm.You can go to the Secretary of State's website for the details.
Here's what I found: "To participate in the Primary, voters must sign an oath on the Presidential Primary ballot stating they will not participate in the nominating process of any other party. A similar oath will be presented to voters at the caucuses."
The Secretary of State's website also provides the text of the oaths in question. To vote Republican, you would sign this statement: "I declare that I am a member of the Republican party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party." If you wanted to vote Democrat, you would have to sign this statement: "I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election."
Not only that, but each party will receive a list of voters who signed the oath for their party. In other words, if you want to vote Republican you will have to sign an oath saying you are a Republican and your name will be sent to the Republican party as someone who declared themselves to be Republican. If you vote Democrat, same deal except that you declare yourself to be a Democrat and your name gets sent to the Democratic party.
So Gug (Mr. I-Hate-Sarcasm),
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 4:56pm.The legality question aside
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 5:24pm.ok, I just thought it was an interesting idea.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 5:29pm.Well, there you go
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 5:35pm."Corruption" is the correct
Submitted by ctqwn on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 6:02pm."Corruption" is the correct term. I'm not sure that anyone is checking who signed what on their ballot envelope against who signs in on their precinct caucus sheet, but the paper trail would exist if someone were to do what's been suggested here. I have to admit that the same thought crossed my mind.
Let's leave the corruption to those who do it best, so when it comes back to bite someone in the butt, it will be someone who deserves it.
Political chicanery. Unethical behavior.
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 2:22am.The end does not justify the means.
The whole electoral system could use an overhaul, but any significant change would be an occasion to load the dice and both parties have trouble not acting on that impulse.
grassroots
Submitted by rebecca on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 11:05am.That's what initiatives and referendum are for. We can write changes to the system (at least for Washington state). At a national level, it's not so simple and we may have to let some elected officials into the process. I'm curious what changes you would like to see?
I voted no. It seems like
Submitted by OperaGirl on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 10:52am.I voted no. It seems like something my friends and I might have done when we were twelve and involved in some sort of adolescent drama at school.
Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life. ~Ludwig van Beethoven
Other tricks
Submitted by rebecca on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 11:14am.Most people here seem to be opposed to caucusing for your party and voting in the primary for the other party in order to pick a weak candidate. Assuming your opinion of its ethicalness doesn't depend on the fact that it's illegal, I'm wondering how you would compare this to other, well-accepted tricks.
For example, what do you think of filibustering? Are you opposed to that, too? If not, what's the difference?
Let's say you are a member of a committee or board that requires 2/3 for a quorum, but a simple majority to pass a motion/bill. Let's say there's a bill put forward which has the support of more than half, but less than 2/3, of the group. Let's say you oppose the bill. Let's say a fellow-opponent of the bill suggests that a majority of the members opposing the bill could "boycott" it, by walking out when it comes time to vote, thus leaving less than a quorum to conduct business. Would you participate in the "boycott"? Is it ethical? What makes it ethical or not?
I'm on several boards . . .
Submitted by theunabonger on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 11:52am.and been chairman of a few of them, and I would definately walk out of a meeting if a scant quorum existed and I felt that the board was about to commit to something that was a mistake. Ethically, as long as you do what you feel is best for the organization (as is your fiduciary duty as a board member), there is no dilemma.
Cosmo
like on Enron's board? >joking<
Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 8:42am.I just use the "know it when I see it" rule
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 12:51pm.For the record.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 12:55pm.tempting though
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 2:09am.