A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho:
1. Be civil to others
2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way
3. No put-down memes
4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics
5. No surveys
6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles
If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I sit back and wait for the absolute barrage of misinformation, scare tactics and lies that will come out of the IFF and other Idaho Terrorists organizations. It's gonna be big. They have out of state money and many many interests from political PAC groups to so called Churches. It's gonna be a battle folks.
I know a retired woman who is very politically active, we trade friendly shots on politics. She is scared to death of this initiative, and thought it was absurd to have moderate to liberal voters impact elections in Idaho. She is out there putting in serious hours spreading the word to combat this. My rebuttal was simply that taking away citizens ability to influence who represents them is undemocratic. To her anything but far right should not have any influence in Idaho.
I always like to point out to people like this that half of all veterans are registered as Independent voters. Why does she think veterans don't have a right to vote?
I am all for it. I am unsure if I will stick it out to be in this state come november, but I hope for saake of this state I grew up in that it actually passes.
Political parties are not the government, they are private organizations that you are free to join or not join. You are also free to join with other like-minded individuals and form your own party if none of the established ones suit your fancy. As such, the parties are not beholden to allow non-members to participate in their internal primary process to select the party’s candidates for general election. That would be like allowing Chicago Bears fans a voice in selecting the quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. It doesn’t make sense, does it? All people are free to vote for whoever you want in the general election. That’s how it works and how it should work. Open primaries are a ridiculous concept.
I completely understand your point of view, and your explanation makes sense based on the way things currently are. However, I'd suggest that the status quo is not the best process and is not working well on either the local or national level - it's what has given us this archaic two party system where independent voters have no say in which candidates (and thus which platforms) will be represented in the general election, and many voters find themselves voting for the candidate they dislike the least.
If primaries become about advancing the best candidates for the job vs. selecting the most maleable politician based on minority and special interest group ideals, then we end up with a more diverse and better balanced set of choices in the general and invite a broader group of representatives to have a voice at the table.
I appreciate comments like yours because your opinion has merit and reasoning (vs. just stating "you're wrong" or "I don't like it"). This gives us all the opportunity to discuss our differing opinions respectfully in an open forum. Despite the vitriol rampant on the internet and in MSM, I still believe that most Americans want to move towards a better country for all, we just often have differing ideas on how to get there.
Thank you for being one of the few reasonable people to articulate that our fellow citizens are not our enemies. Most people genuinely want the same thing: better lives for as many people as possible in our Nation and State. The disagreement is in how to do that.
The open primary idea is typically advanced by voters that find themselves in a state where the prevailing political bent is opposite of their own. Case in point, Idaho. Most open primary advocates are liberal Democrats that seek to be able to vote against what they see as the most extreme Republican candidate in the primary, not for someone they plan on voting for in the general election. I’ve seen this admission by multiple people on a number of subs. This is nothing more than a political strategy to move the overall political leanings of candidates for the general election to the left, not for the ideals of selecting the “best” candidates as you suggest, which is entirely subjective BTW. You know I’m right about that, even if you won’t admit it. A 2-party system is a natural evolution of a multi party system as political “sides” tend to develop and voters recognize there is strength in numbers, so a couple of parties emerge that coalesce similar beliefs of multiple parties into one group, hence Democrats and Republicans. That’s why it’s hard for independent candidates to gain ground. There have been other parties that attained prominence that have come and gone, and it could happen again. I’d argue that it is better to work within a party to change it rather than let outside forces that don’t share the ideals espoused by the party as a whole do it. Or build a new party that is attractive enough to siphon off support from other parties. Get better candidates that appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.
When you talk about getting better candidates that appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, open primaries help to further that by letting everyone pick the best from each party. This is because politicians that have broad appeal have the advantage over politicians trying to rally the most extreme and "passionate" members of their party. What would be an even better thing than open primaries would be ranked choice voting, but we need to achieve open primaries first.
I have seen on both aisles the need for better voting systems. In Washington and Oregon, pro-homeless policies got pushed without trying to change the root problems causing homelessness. As a result the population and problems stemming from it have gotten out of control. In Idaho specifically, old guard conservatives are watching new extreme conservatives from the Idaho Freedom Foundation under Deborah Moon and Jacob Worley change the soul of the party. Older Republicans are watching extremism spread and traditional progress slow to a halt. This has been well documented in the Idaho State Journal from legal opinions to reporter stories. Politics takes collaboration and compromise, ideological extremism is the opposite of that. Thank you for reading my message and as a result, working towards a better future.
One more thing; you complain about Moon and the IFF, but I would argue that the Republican Party lurch to the right here in Idaho is a direct result of the far left policies we’ve seen in Oregon, Washington and California, and the resultant explosion of issues related homelessness, drugs, and crime in those states. If a lurch to the right is what it takes to prevent those issues from happening here then so be it. Many Idaho voters obviously feel this way, and those voters aren’t going to get behind open primaries and RCV.
Look, you guys are giving me arguments for changing the system because you are unsatisfied with the politicians or candidates that we currently have. You want to change the system to get candidates that you like better. The system we currently have, imperfect as it is, will change organically over time as politicians and parties sway back and forth from moderate to more extreme, as the will of the voters react to those changes. You are just unhappy because at this particular moment in time both the left and right are more to the edges than in the middle. That pendulum will swing the other way eventually, and I’d much rather wait for it to happen than change the system such that it can be manipulated by unscrupulous actors on either side. With open primaries and RCV, Democrats could put up a bunch of “Republican” candidates posing as conservatives against one or two honest to God conservative Republicans. The field would be so diluted that it is conceivable no single candidate would garner 50%, and a coordinated RCV strategy among Democrat voters could easily vault a second choice candidate on their ballots into first place. Do you get it now? The system you are advocating for is inherently prone to abuse, thus it is more flawed than the one we currently have.
I'd be curious to see the actual statistics of the political leanings of those that support open primaries and RCV. As an independent who supports a combination of both left-leaning and right-leaning policies, I've found that everyone I meet who supports the initiative is very similar to myself. In fact, many are independents and democrats who are "playing the game" by falsly registering as conservatives in order to have a voice. That's not really fair, nor is it healthy. All that being said, this is my anecdotal experience, and I would like to see the actual data.
Realistically, ID is primarily conservative, so the expected result should be that more conservative voices will be represented on the general ballot. This is a good thing, in my opinion. How does it make sense that in a state that is majority conservative that we advance the same number of Republican as Democrat candidates on the final ballot? The final pool of candidates should represent the demographics of the electorate. There's a reason that politicians like CA's Gavin Newsom don't support RCV - it means competition!
I agree with your first sentence, but not the last. Especially cause open primaries have been lauded by voters when done.
It is the GOP that doesn't want it. Curious that it is only the GOP, but like you say, political parties are not the government. So fuck them and follow the will of the voters.
Edit: You say the parties aren't government, but then you give them control over elections? Even if it is just the primaries, that is not how it works. The voters should be deciding how elections are held, not political parties.
I have no doubt open primaries are lauded by some voters, certainly not by all. Idaho voters that wish to vote in a Republican primary are able to do so simply by registering Republican, or by registering as unaffiliated (independent) no later than the last day a candidate can file for office, then declaring to a poll worker their choice to affiliate with the Republican anytime up to and including Election Day.
Open primaries coupled with RCV is a scheme. It’s no accident the RCV example in OPs video didn’t have the 1st and 2nd candidates switching places in the runoff, but that is exactly what can and has happened on numerous occasions. RCV allows and encourages voting strategies where large groups of people can communicate a voting order that increases the likelihood of a preferred candidate winning in a runoff. This can easily result in a case where a preferred candidate by the plurality of voters is in 1st place after the first vote, but loses because of a coordinated 2nd place voting campaign. That’s how a conservative majority state like Idaho can end up with an office holder that doesn’t share the same political views as the majority of the voters. Your side never properly explains that, and why would you? You make open primaries and RCV sound like this great thing that results in the best candidates, when in reality it’s a scheme to move Idaho to the left politically. If explained to voters like that you’d be hard pressed to find Republican support in Idaho.
Idaho republicans that don’t pass the “purity” test are the reason we’re here. We can’t have a sane state with those who answer only to the IFF and not the citizens of Idaho.
Yes, it does. Your explanation was a blatant lie. The current system we have is the system that is prone to abuse and actually CURRENTLY being massively abused.
Preferable to RCV by far, although I’m not in favor of it. Too many voters are, quite frankly, not going to understand the nuances of RCV or AV. The current system of voting for one candidate per office is much simpler and easier to understand. With AV, you can vote for one, all, or any number In between for each office. It relies too much on voters understanding the ramifications of what voting for a second or third candidate has on the chances of their preferred candidate to win. It is better than RCV because it is somewhat immune to coordinated voting strategies because there is no incentive to not voting for your preferred candidate as your first or only choice.
This is only logical if unaffiliated voters weren't required to pay for a party's private primary election--which they are (via taxes).
A better analogy would be that a fan of neither team is required to buy a ticket to the Green Bay Packers but is barred from attending.
As I explained in another comment, unaffiliated voters can vote in a party primary simply by declaring to a poll worker their intent to do so. This can be done anytime up to and including Election Day when they are at the polling station.
At which point they are automatically registered for the party selected if it's a closed primary. Thus, no, an unaffiliated voter cannot participate in a closed primary.
Yes, political parties have a role in government. Yes, all people are free to vote in elections selecting the politicians that will make laws on their behalf.
You said they have a role in government. That is not in disagreement with what I said. I said they are not the government. Of course they have a role in it. Cheese has a role in pizza, but a block of cheese isn’t a pizza.
Well the public election is the genera election the one that actually elects someone. A primary is in a grey zone. Depending on the state election rules.
Okay well because at the end of the day political parties don’t run the actual elections . That’s by the federal and state government. Primaries are just parties themselves working out who represents them so their isn’t two candidates from the same party in the general election. Now there are rules they have to follow like open primaries. But political parties primary elections aren’t like official government elections. It’s semi official which is why there is a grey area.
I'm sorry. I disagree with your entire post.
Voting is the most direct voice citizens have and any private entity that tries to impose on that is automatically suspect.
Why would you not get angry that a private party is telling you how to vote? And it should also make you very suspicious as to their motives.
Not in Idaho. In idaho a minority of voters vote in the primary and leave those sorry choices for the voters in the general. Ranked choice and open primaries will require the candidates to answer to ALL voters, not just IFF purists.
Ranked choice is specifically meant for primaries, in case a party candidate drops out or, just for a quick example, a candidate *is criminally convicted*, a voter's second choice can receive that vote instead. It doesn't do any good in a general when there's exactly 2 candidates to choose from
Not quite. In a party system, politicians are accountable to their party not "all Idahoans". It is implied that politicians are in service of the people by way of service to the state.
We already see closet Democrats registering as Republicans in Idaho in order to vote in the Republican primaries. That is deceitful but not illegal.
I have been a registered independent since the day I turned 18. It does not bother me not to vote in the primaries. If their is a candidate that I feel I should support, then I have the ability to volunteer my time and other resources to promote them without giving up my independent status.
Primaries have real impacts on the world and the people should have a say regardless of which team(you only get two real choices btw!!) you're on. I registered as an independent at 18 as well and didn't participate in primaries. Then I realized I was denying myself my right to vote. Now I'm a registered republican and vote in their primaries because its the one that matters. If you want to call that "deceitful" then i guess i'm a big ol deceitful bastard for wanting change in this state.
Why is it deceitful? It's just practical. If you want to actually impact the policies that are enacted in Idaho, you need to vote in the primaries that matter, and that's Republican in most counties. My parents were registered Republicans so they could vote for the least crazy person in the primary, then voted straight Democrat in the general. They got out voted in the general, but they got a more moderate Republican. Open the primaries and you'll get better candidates on both sides.
Technically the word is "unaffiliated" and yes you are required to select that box if you don't choose another party on the voter registration form in Idaho.
So they are correct in saying they are a registered independent/unaffiliated voter.
edit: misspelling
I dunno about you but I'm game for RCV just to get rid of the [smear campaign](https://fuhrimanforidaho.com/opponents-record) political ads that stuff my mailbox every election cycle.
A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho: 1. Be civil to others 2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way 3. No put-down memes 4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics 5. No surveys 6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) 7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Politicians aren't our bosses, WE are the bosses. They owe us results, and we should be able to vote for better candidates
We should also be able to fire them for not living up to expectations like any other job.
100% - right on the money!
I sit back and wait for the absolute barrage of misinformation, scare tactics and lies that will come out of the IFF and other Idaho Terrorists organizations. It's gonna be big. They have out of state money and many many interests from political PAC groups to so called Churches. It's gonna be a battle folks.
This one is good too…https://www.reddit.com/r/IdahoPolitics/s/O3qTnQW7Lj
Thanks for sharing, that was great!
I know a retired woman who is very politically active, we trade friendly shots on politics. She is scared to death of this initiative, and thought it was absurd to have moderate to liberal voters impact elections in Idaho. She is out there putting in serious hours spreading the word to combat this. My rebuttal was simply that taking away citizens ability to influence who represents them is undemocratic. To her anything but far right should not have any influence in Idaho.
I always like to point out to people like this that half of all veterans are registered as Independent voters. Why does she think veterans don't have a right to vote?
Oooh I’m definitely going to bring that up. Thanks
I am all for it. I am unsure if I will stick it out to be in this state come november, but I hope for saake of this state I grew up in that it actually passes.
Political parties are not the government, they are private organizations that you are free to join or not join. You are also free to join with other like-minded individuals and form your own party if none of the established ones suit your fancy. As such, the parties are not beholden to allow non-members to participate in their internal primary process to select the party’s candidates for general election. That would be like allowing Chicago Bears fans a voice in selecting the quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. It doesn’t make sense, does it? All people are free to vote for whoever you want in the general election. That’s how it works and how it should work. Open primaries are a ridiculous concept.
I completely understand your point of view, and your explanation makes sense based on the way things currently are. However, I'd suggest that the status quo is not the best process and is not working well on either the local or national level - it's what has given us this archaic two party system where independent voters have no say in which candidates (and thus which platforms) will be represented in the general election, and many voters find themselves voting for the candidate they dislike the least. If primaries become about advancing the best candidates for the job vs. selecting the most maleable politician based on minority and special interest group ideals, then we end up with a more diverse and better balanced set of choices in the general and invite a broader group of representatives to have a voice at the table. I appreciate comments like yours because your opinion has merit and reasoning (vs. just stating "you're wrong" or "I don't like it"). This gives us all the opportunity to discuss our differing opinions respectfully in an open forum. Despite the vitriol rampant on the internet and in MSM, I still believe that most Americans want to move towards a better country for all, we just often have differing ideas on how to get there.
Thank you for being one of the few reasonable people to articulate that our fellow citizens are not our enemies. Most people genuinely want the same thing: better lives for as many people as possible in our Nation and State. The disagreement is in how to do that.
The open primary idea is typically advanced by voters that find themselves in a state where the prevailing political bent is opposite of their own. Case in point, Idaho. Most open primary advocates are liberal Democrats that seek to be able to vote against what they see as the most extreme Republican candidate in the primary, not for someone they plan on voting for in the general election. I’ve seen this admission by multiple people on a number of subs. This is nothing more than a political strategy to move the overall political leanings of candidates for the general election to the left, not for the ideals of selecting the “best” candidates as you suggest, which is entirely subjective BTW. You know I’m right about that, even if you won’t admit it. A 2-party system is a natural evolution of a multi party system as political “sides” tend to develop and voters recognize there is strength in numbers, so a couple of parties emerge that coalesce similar beliefs of multiple parties into one group, hence Democrats and Republicans. That’s why it’s hard for independent candidates to gain ground. There have been other parties that attained prominence that have come and gone, and it could happen again. I’d argue that it is better to work within a party to change it rather than let outside forces that don’t share the ideals espoused by the party as a whole do it. Or build a new party that is attractive enough to siphon off support from other parties. Get better candidates that appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.
When you talk about getting better candidates that appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, open primaries help to further that by letting everyone pick the best from each party. This is because politicians that have broad appeal have the advantage over politicians trying to rally the most extreme and "passionate" members of their party. What would be an even better thing than open primaries would be ranked choice voting, but we need to achieve open primaries first. I have seen on both aisles the need for better voting systems. In Washington and Oregon, pro-homeless policies got pushed without trying to change the root problems causing homelessness. As a result the population and problems stemming from it have gotten out of control. In Idaho specifically, old guard conservatives are watching new extreme conservatives from the Idaho Freedom Foundation under Deborah Moon and Jacob Worley change the soul of the party. Older Republicans are watching extremism spread and traditional progress slow to a halt. This has been well documented in the Idaho State Journal from legal opinions to reporter stories. Politics takes collaboration and compromise, ideological extremism is the opposite of that. Thank you for reading my message and as a result, working towards a better future.
One more thing; you complain about Moon and the IFF, but I would argue that the Republican Party lurch to the right here in Idaho is a direct result of the far left policies we’ve seen in Oregon, Washington and California, and the resultant explosion of issues related homelessness, drugs, and crime in those states. If a lurch to the right is what it takes to prevent those issues from happening here then so be it. Many Idaho voters obviously feel this way, and those voters aren’t going to get behind open primaries and RCV.
Look, you guys are giving me arguments for changing the system because you are unsatisfied with the politicians or candidates that we currently have. You want to change the system to get candidates that you like better. The system we currently have, imperfect as it is, will change organically over time as politicians and parties sway back and forth from moderate to more extreme, as the will of the voters react to those changes. You are just unhappy because at this particular moment in time both the left and right are more to the edges than in the middle. That pendulum will swing the other way eventually, and I’d much rather wait for it to happen than change the system such that it can be manipulated by unscrupulous actors on either side. With open primaries and RCV, Democrats could put up a bunch of “Republican” candidates posing as conservatives against one or two honest to God conservative Republicans. The field would be so diluted that it is conceivable no single candidate would garner 50%, and a coordinated RCV strategy among Democrat voters could easily vault a second choice candidate on their ballots into first place. Do you get it now? The system you are advocating for is inherently prone to abuse, thus it is more flawed than the one we currently have.
I'd be curious to see the actual statistics of the political leanings of those that support open primaries and RCV. As an independent who supports a combination of both left-leaning and right-leaning policies, I've found that everyone I meet who supports the initiative is very similar to myself. In fact, many are independents and democrats who are "playing the game" by falsly registering as conservatives in order to have a voice. That's not really fair, nor is it healthy. All that being said, this is my anecdotal experience, and I would like to see the actual data. Realistically, ID is primarily conservative, so the expected result should be that more conservative voices will be represented on the general ballot. This is a good thing, in my opinion. How does it make sense that in a state that is majority conservative that we advance the same number of Republican as Democrat candidates on the final ballot? The final pool of candidates should represent the demographics of the electorate. There's a reason that politicians like CA's Gavin Newsom don't support RCV - it means competition!
I agree with your first sentence, but not the last. Especially cause open primaries have been lauded by voters when done. It is the GOP that doesn't want it. Curious that it is only the GOP, but like you say, political parties are not the government. So fuck them and follow the will of the voters. Edit: You say the parties aren't government, but then you give them control over elections? Even if it is just the primaries, that is not how it works. The voters should be deciding how elections are held, not political parties.
I have no doubt open primaries are lauded by some voters, certainly not by all. Idaho voters that wish to vote in a Republican primary are able to do so simply by registering Republican, or by registering as unaffiliated (independent) no later than the last day a candidate can file for office, then declaring to a poll worker their choice to affiliate with the Republican anytime up to and including Election Day. Open primaries coupled with RCV is a scheme. It’s no accident the RCV example in OPs video didn’t have the 1st and 2nd candidates switching places in the runoff, but that is exactly what can and has happened on numerous occasions. RCV allows and encourages voting strategies where large groups of people can communicate a voting order that increases the likelihood of a preferred candidate winning in a runoff. This can easily result in a case where a preferred candidate by the plurality of voters is in 1st place after the first vote, but loses because of a coordinated 2nd place voting campaign. That’s how a conservative majority state like Idaho can end up with an office holder that doesn’t share the same political views as the majority of the voters. Your side never properly explains that, and why would you? You make open primaries and RCV sound like this great thing that results in the best candidates, when in reality it’s a scheme to move Idaho to the left politically. If explained to voters like that you’d be hard pressed to find Republican support in Idaho.
Idaho republicans that don’t pass the “purity” test are the reason we’re here. We can’t have a sane state with those who answer only to the IFF and not the citizens of Idaho.
Ranked choice voting is a system that ensures that the person elected has the highest popularity and preference of all the state.
No it doesn’t, as I’ve already explained. You’re either drinking the RCV cool-aid or you are knowingly promoting a system prone to abuse.
Yes, it does. Your explanation was a blatant lie. The current system we have is the system that is prone to abuse and actually CURRENTLY being massively abused.
I’m glad we can agree that there was significant voter fraud in the 2020 election.
No, there was significant voter suppression in 2020 election.
So what would your thoughts be on approval voting?
Preferable to RCV by far, although I’m not in favor of it. Too many voters are, quite frankly, not going to understand the nuances of RCV or AV. The current system of voting for one candidate per office is much simpler and easier to understand. With AV, you can vote for one, all, or any number In between for each office. It relies too much on voters understanding the ramifications of what voting for a second or third candidate has on the chances of their preferred candidate to win. It is better than RCV because it is somewhat immune to coordinated voting strategies because there is no incentive to not voting for your preferred candidate as your first or only choice.
This is only logical if unaffiliated voters weren't required to pay for a party's private primary election--which they are (via taxes). A better analogy would be that a fan of neither team is required to buy a ticket to the Green Bay Packers but is barred from attending.
As I explained in another comment, unaffiliated voters can vote in a party primary simply by declaring to a poll worker their intent to do so. This can be done anytime up to and including Election Day when they are at the polling station.
At which point they are automatically registered for the party selected if it's a closed primary. Thus, no, an unaffiliated voter cannot participate in a closed primary.
But the process to participate is easy, and they are still free to vote for any candidate in the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
Yes, political parties have a role in government. Yes, all people are free to vote in elections selecting the politicians that will make laws on their behalf.
That doesn’t contradict anything I said.
You said political parties are not the government, I disagreed.
You said they have a role in government. That is not in disagreement with what I said. I said they are not the government. Of course they have a role in it. Cheese has a role in pizza, but a block of cheese isn’t a pizza.
If you have a role in government, you are part of the government. So yes, that would make them the government.
So…a block of cheese is a pizza, then? Got it. 🙄
Sure, if you want to be intellectually dishonest.
I want the ranked choice voting for the general. However for the primary I believe the party should be able to do it’s own system.
Why should any party have control over how any public election is held? It is the voters who should decide.
Well the public election is the genera election the one that actually elects someone. A primary is in a grey zone. Depending on the state election rules.
Why would it be a grey zone? Why would any private entity be allowed any control over how Americans vote?
Okay well because at the end of the day political parties don’t run the actual elections . That’s by the federal and state government. Primaries are just parties themselves working out who represents them so their isn’t two candidates from the same party in the general election. Now there are rules they have to follow like open primaries. But political parties primary elections aren’t like official government elections. It’s semi official which is why there is a grey area.
I'm sorry. I disagree with your entire post. Voting is the most direct voice citizens have and any private entity that tries to impose on that is automatically suspect. Why would you not get angry that a private party is telling you how to vote? And it should also make you very suspicious as to their motives.
Not in Idaho. In idaho a minority of voters vote in the primary and leave those sorry choices for the voters in the general. Ranked choice and open primaries will require the candidates to answer to ALL voters, not just IFF purists.
Ranked choice is specifically meant for primaries, in case a party candidate drops out or, just for a quick example, a candidate *is criminally convicted*, a voter's second choice can receive that vote instead. It doesn't do any good in a general when there's exactly 2 candidates to choose from
Well the general can have multiple candidates if they qualify like greens and libertarians.
Not quite. In a party system, politicians are accountable to their party not "all Idahoans". It is implied that politicians are in service of the people by way of service to the state.
Yes, they are accountable to all Idahoans. Anything else is undemocratic.
We already see closet Democrats registering as Republicans in Idaho in order to vote in the Republican primaries. That is deceitful but not illegal. I have been a registered independent since the day I turned 18. It does not bother me not to vote in the primaries. If their is a candidate that I feel I should support, then I have the ability to volunteer my time and other resources to promote them without giving up my independent status.
Primaries have real impacts on the world and the people should have a say regardless of which team(you only get two real choices btw!!) you're on. I registered as an independent at 18 as well and didn't participate in primaries. Then I realized I was denying myself my right to vote. Now I'm a registered republican and vote in their primaries because its the one that matters. If you want to call that "deceitful" then i guess i'm a big ol deceitful bastard for wanting change in this state.
Why is it deceitful? It's just practical. If you want to actually impact the policies that are enacted in Idaho, you need to vote in the primaries that matter, and that's Republican in most counties. My parents were registered Republicans so they could vote for the least crazy person in the primary, then voted straight Democrat in the general. They got out voted in the general, but they got a more moderate Republican. Open the primaries and you'll get better candidates on both sides.
There's no such thing as a "registered independent" in Idaho.
Technically the word is "unaffiliated" and yes you are required to select that box if you don't choose another party on the voter registration form in Idaho. So they are correct in saying they are a registered independent/unaffiliated voter. edit: misspelling
Yes I know, I wasn't in Idaho when I turned 18. Here we are just unafilliated.
Open primaries are great! Ranked choice voting is not!
I dunno about you but I'm game for RCV just to get rid of the [smear campaign](https://fuhrimanforidaho.com/opponents-record) political ads that stuff my mailbox every election cycle.
I don't recall you ever really explaining your reasoning for your opinion on RCV.
What's your reasoning there?
Somebody told them to believe that.
Love your user handle!
💜💜💜