Voting day!

I voted in my very first primary today! I usually skip those, because, well, I usually forget about them. But I really, really, really, really, really hate Tom Emmer, the republican candidate for governor, and really want to make sure he doesn’t win.

I really hate Tom Emmer.

I took MPR’s Select-A-Candidate checklist, and it determined that I should vote for Margaret Anderson Kelliher. I ended up deciding to vote for former US senator Mark Dayton.

I was planning to vote for Matt Entenza, but changed my mind after hearing the final primary debates.

I have a good feeling that Margaret Anderson Kelliher will win tonight. Let’s hope that whoever does can beat Emmer!

Who else voted today (US folks, that is)?

Update: I was wrong! Dayton won, by a very small margin.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Voting day!

  1. David K says:

    (I know I’m non-US and therefore people, not folks, but anyway…)
    The closest thing I’ll get is next months voting in the Labour leadership election -(1st pref. Diane Abbott for my heart, 2nd pref. David Miliband for my head, 3rd pref Ed Miliband best looking…) http://www2.labour.org.uk/leadership-2010

    What do you think of primaries in general though?

    There are some people in the UK who want to introduce primary elections as a way of increasing voter participation in politics, and a way of getting more “normal” and representative candidates selected – what would you reckon? Are primaries a better selection method than voting by party members, or does it just encourage division within parties and end up nominating more “middle of the road” candidates?

    • April says:

      Well, until the Presidential Democratic primary in ’08 when the race between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama was such big news, I hadn’t paid much attention to them. From what I understand, and my understanding is admittedly a little immature as of yet, primary elections don’t seem to cause any significant changes. I really understand them to be the method by which voters narrow down their choices for the “important” election.

      I know many people– my mom, for example– who won’t vote in primary elections, or at least dislike the idea of them, because you’re restricted to voting for one party. This is for good reason, in my opinion, as if I plan to vote for Dayton because I think he’s got the best chance of beating my least favorite candidate, Emmer, I wouldn’t want an Emmer supporter to vote for, say, Matt Entenza, another Democrat running for the Democrat spot, because he has the least likely chance of beating Emmer.

      I’m a little confused, though, because they didn’t ask me to register as a member of any particular party, which I thought they did at primaries. They simply handed me the ballot and said that I was only allowed to vote for a candidate in one party, and that if there were votes in more than one party category for different offices, the ballot would be disqualified.

      I don’t think that a primary does much in the way of ensuring that normal or more representative candidates get elected. Call me cynical, but corporate endorsements and deceptive styles of campaigning happen across the board, and not many people who aren’t a Washington insider tend to win often, anyway. That seems to be changing slowly but surely, although I don’t see it having much to do with primary elections.

      On a slightly different note, the link you provided in your comment sparked me to sign up for the mailing list, because (and I know this sounds ignorant, but, well, what can I say) I know so little about UK politics, parties, the whole works. Not understanding really what a “postcode” was, and assuming it was similar to the US’s “zip code,” I just entered my zip code. Of course, that was invalid, so I looked up “postcode” on Wikipedia and picked the first one I found… M1 1AA. Not even sure what that means just yet 😉

      Hope that answered your question, though.

  2. David K says:

    Thanks for the answer, that was rather a dull comparative politics type question.
    I think primary elections might be a good way of getting your core voters/ activists interested in the run up to an election; but being used to the party clannishness of UK politics the kind of open conflict between candidates of one party involved in primary elections feels…. dangerous, in a giving-aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy kind of way.

    I could see Labour party candidates being picked by primary elections involving party members and labour unionists, but tbh I could also see very few people turning up to vote in such a contest.

    I’m not sure that the mailing list will be especially enlightening – the UK politics article on wikipedia is a fair intro, also try
    http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php
    which has articles on the British left, and the good old Guardian.

    If I had to sum up British politics in comparison with the US, I think it would be:
    “More cruel, and yet more civilised, in the way that only ancient civilisations can be”

  3. Pingback: Happy blogoversary, ethecofem! | ethecofem

Comments are closed.