Voters rip Democrats’ oath plan (SC)

S.C. party faces criticism for making people sign loyalty pledge before voting in primary Tuesday
By LEE BANDY
On Politics

Dumb.

That’s how people all over South Carolina characterized the state Democratic Party’s decision to require voters to declare they are Democrats if they want to participate in Tuesday’s presidential primary.

Consider Herb Hoefer, a 52-year-old state social services worker. He plans to show poll workers his registration card, but he will not sign the oath.

And if they try to stop him from voting?
“I’ll tell them to stick it in their ear; I’m voting,” Hoefer vowed.

snip

Strategically, the move could throw a damper on turnout and hurt the chances of candidates John Edwards, Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman — who are hoping to attract independent voters and disaffected Republicans.

more..

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/7853392.htm

some may not agree, but the same tactics that work for brain dead ditto heads will not work with people who still believe that a person's politics is there own business. ;-)

“It sounds like one of the stupidest ideas I’ve heard in a long time,” said Rice University political scientist Earl Black, formerly of the University of South Carolina. “This makes no sense at all. It just steps on the effort of South Carolina Democrats to create a situation to build the party.”

If not, it's a national party rule that we ask people to affirm they have affiliated with the Democratic Party at the last election, or plan to do so in the next election.

It's the same requirement to participate in delegate selection.

It's not a loyalty oath. It keeps freeping Republicans from voting in both elections.

Anybody shows up from Legislative District 41 in Fargo, N.D. tomorrow and won't sign the form that says that, they dont' get to vote. Its the rules, and if you don't like them, you have to take a change all the way to the DNC.

Voters who appear at their polling places will be asked to sign an oath swearing that “I consider myself to be a Democrat” before casting their ballots.

State Democratic Party chairman Joe Erwin, who noted the rule had been on the party books since 1976, stressed the oath doesn’t bind voters in any way. He said voters — especially independents and disaffected Republicans — should feel free to participate in the primary.

In NH I noticed the voters just had to say I am independent or something like that

It's kind of dumb, the only effect I can see is keeping some uptight socalled moderate independents from voting, probably to the detriment of Holy Joe. That, and giving RW radio something else to bitch about.

but not too many for Joe...this article seems to think this might also hurt Edwards and Clark in SC...which obviously would help kerry.

Isn't this just then a modified closed primary? Most (northern) states make one declare a party affiliation to participate in primaries.

The alternative, like here in Georgia, is to leave it wide open and get the Cynthia McKinney's of the world defeated by Repub voters who have no contested race to vote on of their own.

Don't know how she'll react to having to pledge to be a Democrat. (It won't stop her, if I have anything to do with it).

This was not a good idea.

look so bad. If SC doesn't require designation of party affiliation with voter registration then this SC Dem says the state Democratic Party is wrong to require such a loyalty oath. Work to change the state not to affect the primary.

Sure some repugs may come out and vote but this could cost us some serious independents who are Clark-leaning. I'm a diehard, yellow dog Democrat but the loyalty oath offends me highly. Besides, in 2000 I voted for McCain in the republican primary in an effort to avoid a Bush presidency.

:thumbsup: