If you are a registered rebuplican voter......

[Disney1fan2002]

would you sign a petition to get a democrat on the ballot to go against the incumbant republican????

At LL opening day Saturday, a man was walking around with a clip board getting signatures for his friend to get on the ballot for State Rep. I asked if his friend was republican or democrat, he said democrat. I would not of felt comforable signing my name, as I am a registered rebublican. I told him, and itt seemed he didn't think it mattered, I should still sign. HUH? I just felt it wouldn't look good for my name to be on the petition. I sent him to ny DH, who is unenrolled, and he signed his name. I know I don't know much about politics, but it struck me funny that he didn't think it matter that I was not a democrat, to sign my name.

 

[AllyandJack]

I'm not a registered republican (or democrat), but if you don't feel comfortable signing something, nobody should question that. I once worked for a guy who was the head of some group fighting the airport. My father worked at that airport for almost my entire life. My boss wanted me to sign the petition against the airport. I refused. He acted like it was no big deal to sign it....just put your name on the paper, right? Wrong. Some people think it's just a silly formality, but for some people it's more than that and the people holding the document should respect that.

 

[MossMan]

It doesn't matter, it really doesn't.

Being a registered voter simply means you want to participate in the candidate selection process. Often this has more impact than the results of what happens in the general vote.

In fact I know couples who both are Republicans, but one registers Democrat while the other registers Republican. This way they have a say in who gets chosen to run for both parties. As conservatives, they think it is important to ensure that moderate Democrats get selected.

 

[dbarker]

It would depend on who it was. I am a registered Republican and I vote for a Democratic Representative. (a lot of us here do) I even wrote in his name during the Republican primaries b/c I did not like any of the ones running against him.

However, I would not sign any petition I was not confortable with. We have the right to petition, we also have the right to not petition.

 

[Bob Slydell]

it struck me funny that he didn't think it matter that I was not a democrat, to sign my name.

That's not really that surprising -- he really could have cared less if the signatures were from people who would actually vote for his candidate, as long as he got enough signatures to get the candidate on the ballot.

 

[CarolA]

I will sign any petetion for someone to get on the ballot. I figure everyone has a right to run. That doesn't mean I will vote for them!

However, I also don't base my choices on the party but the person.

 

[kpm76]

I don't think it's surprising at all. Signing the form (it's not a petition) simply means you believe in the democratic process and the fact that every candidate who desires to be on the ballot should have that opportunity. It has nothing to do with support for one candidate or political party. In order to be considered a viable candidate and have your name appear on an election ballot, you need to collect a certain number of signatures from registered voters and have those signatures certified by the Board of Canvassers. The number of signatures you need depends on the office you are seeking.

 

[UnderTheMistletoe]

I think it depends on how party-alligned you are. If you are someone who will ALWAYS vote Republican, no matter what the issue and who is running, then probably don't sign in that situation. If you are someone with political aspirations under the Republican party, then you probably wouldn't want to sign. If you have a family name that is in politics and is staunch Republican, then you probably don't want to sign.

If you are someone that looks at the topics of interest and reads into the the candidates voting history, how he/she deals with constituencies, etc., then it would seem strange that you woudln't sign and take the time to get to know the candidate.

I think it really depends whether you vote party without looking into the electoral races or if you vote for people based on how they run their campaign and what they have to say. You may be a registered Republican voter, but that doesn't mean you always have vote Republican.

 

[brerrabbit]

Regardless of my party affiliation I would sign it. I am a strong supporter of the Democratic process and all the signature is doing is getting him on the ballot. Come election time I will then choose who represents me better and vote accordingly. Signing and getting him on the ballot just gives me more choice come election time.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

I will sign any petetion for someone to get on the ballot. I figure everyone has a right to run. That doesn't mean I will vote for them!

However, I also don't base my choices on the party but the person.

Me too. I have signed petitions to put "other" party candidates on the ballot, and I've signed petitions for ballot issues I knew I'd vote against, because I believe voters should have choices.

Regardless of my thoughts on that though, it sounds like this particular signature-gatherer (is that a word?) was being a bit pushy. If someone doesn't want to sign it, the reason shouldn't matter. He shouldn't be pressuring anyone to sign if they don't want to.

 

[jgmklmhem]

I almost always sign for any candidate unless I know something specifically that would make me not want to have them on the ballot. For example if Joe Whoever down the street wanted to run for office but I knew he wasn't a trustworthy neighbor I probably wouldn't sign. I also do not sign certain ballot initiatives petitions that I find particularly objectionable or something that shouldn't be in the state constitution like say the one about pigs that was on the FL ballot a few years back when I lived there.

Here is the pig amendment:
Article X, § 21
Limiting cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy.—Inhumane treatment of animals is a concern of Florida citizens. To prevent cruelty to certain animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, the people of the State of Florida hereby limit the cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy as provided herein.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a farm in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely.
(b) This section shall not apply:
(1) when a pig is undergoing an examination, test, treatment or operation carried out for veterinary purposes, provided the period during which the animal is confined or tethered is not longer than reasonably necessary.
(2) during the prebirthing period.
(c ) For purposes of this section:
(1) “enclosure” means any cage, crate or other enclosure in which a pig is kept for all or the majority of any day, including what is commonly described as the “gestation crate.”
(2) “farm” means the land, buildings, support facilities, and other appurtenances used in the production of animals for food or fiber.
(3) “person” means any natural person, corporation and/or business entity.
(4) “pig” means any animal of the porcine species.
(5) “turning around freely” means turning around without having to touch any side of the pig’s enclosure.
(6) “prebirthing period” means the seven day period prior to a pig’s expected date of giving birth.
(d) A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), as amended, or by a fine of not more than $5000, or by both imprisonment and a fine, unless and until the legislature enacts more stringent penalties for violations hereof. On and after the effective date of this section, law enforcement officers in the state are authorized to enforce the provisions of this section in the same manner and authority as if a violation of this section constituted a violation of Section 828.13, Florida Statutes (1999). The confinement or tethering of each pig shall constitute a separate offense. The knowledge or acts of agents and employees of a person in regard to a pig owned, farmed or in the custody of a person, shall be held to be the knowledge or act of such person.
(e) It is the intent of this section that implementing legislation is not required for enforcing any violations hereof.
(f) If any portion of this section is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion of this section, to the fullest extent possible, shall be severed from the void portion and given the fullest possible force and application.
(g) This section shall take effect six years after approval by the electors.

while maybe something that needs to be done I just did not think it belonged in the constitution of the state even as an amendment.

 

[DawnCt1]

I would sign, particularly if its a Democrat that would show poorly against my Republican candidate.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Regardless of my thoughts on that though, it sounds like this particular signature-gatherer (is that a word?) was being a bit pushy. If someone doesn't want to sign it, the reason shouldn't matter. He shouldn't be pressuring anyone to sign if they don't want to.

Actually, the OP didn't mention that the person with the petition asked for a reason why she wouldn't sign. The OP volunteered that info herself and he just stated it didn't matter what party she was (which it doesn't).

 

[rayelias]

I would sign, particularly if its a Democrat that would show poorly against my Republican candidate.

Beat me to it!

 

[gate_pourri]

I personally wouldn’t have signed the petition. If I liked the incumbent, why would I want to help get someone else on the ballot? I also have political aspirations, and work in the party, and wouldn’t want my name coming forward as someone who signed it.

Also, I don’t know how it works in Mass but in many states, you cannot sign your name on both the Republican and Democrat petitions (for the same position). If you did, your signature could be challenged, and would likely be kicked off the petition.

With that said, When I was collecting petitions, I had some Democrats sign.

 

[gate_pourri]

I don't think it's surprising at all. Signing the form (it's not a petition) simply means you believe in the democratic process and the fact that every candidate who desires to be on the ballot should have that opportunity.

Actually it is a petition. If you actually read what you are signing it will typically say something to the effect of:

We, the undersigned, members of and affiliated with the Republican Party, and qualified primary electors of said Republican Party , do hereby petition that whoever resides at wherever, shall be a candidate of the office of whatever.

It is a petition to get the person on the primary ballot.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I would only have signed if I knew what he stood for and thought he should be on the ballot.

 

[troy mcclure]

Probably would not have signed it. I'm not registered as anything, which I suppose makes me fair game for any and every political party. I'm just careful about what documents to which I apply my "John Hancock."

Just have to ask: is a "rebuplican" similar to a "demoncrat"?

 

[Puffy2]

I would sign, particularly if its a Democrat that would show poorly against my Republican candidate.

Ah, yes, Dawn has caught on to something that others may be overlooking.

Republicans also often will vote in Democratic primaries inorder to attempt to get "lesser" candidates elected so that when they run in Nov. they will (supposedly) loose to the Republican. Ethical? Maybe not. Legal? Absolutely.

 

[jgmklmhem]

Ah, yes, Dawn has caught on to something that others may be overlooking.

Republicans also often will vote in Democratic primaries inorder to attempt to get "lesser" candidates elected so that when they run in Nov. they will (supposedly) loose to the Republican. Ethical? Maybe not. Legal? Absolutely.

You post this as if Democrats don't do exactly the same thing.