Would You Sign a Loyalty Oath to Vote? (legal, best)

[CAVA1990]

Voters in the upcoming Republican primary in Virginia will be required to sign an oath that they will vote for the winning Republican candidate in the general election. While it's unenforceable it could intimidate some independents and Democrats from crossing over. I can even imagine some Republicans being put off by this (particularly Ron Paul supporters). Do you think this is a good way to keep non-Republicans from voting?

[ChristineVA]

That's nuts.

[Caladium]

This is the first time I've heard of this, so I don't know enough details to comment. It sounds like something that could possibly rub people the wrong way and backfire. I'm not sure I understand the question about non Republicans voting. Did you mean voting next November or in the Republican primary?

[Carlingtonian]

Evidently they have the legal right to require this--but it would've made more sense to ask people to pledge that they consider themselves to be Republicans and have a sincere intent on nominating the person they believe best for the job. (This is on the assumption that the point of the oath is to prevent Democrats from voting in their primary and skewing the vote toward someone less electable in the general.)

[VM1138]

It's an unenforceable way to keep Democrats from messing with the vote. It's not as terrible as it sounds, because technically primaries are just an administrative part of a political party, not an election.

[South Jersey Styx]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Would You Sign a Loyalty Oath to Vote?

Hell no.

[SallyField]

I'm with Carlingtonian - I assume the purpose here is to curb the number of Democrats (or other opposition parties) trying to screw with the primary system.

Googling "Loyalty Oath" pulls a Wiki page on the subject. I can't believe I've never even heard of it. According to the Wiki, a similar oath was required for members of the public attending some of GWB's campaign re-election rallies. Given the divisiveness of GWB, I'm certain that must have been to curb the number of hecklers and protesters, not to ensure votes. Of course, hecklers and protesters could just sign the oath and go protest anyway (and I'm sure many did), but that would at least keep the numbers down somewhat.

Would I sign one to vote in a primary? Sure, of course. It means nothing, and I intend to vote in the primary.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by SallyField

I'm with Carlingtonian - I assume the purpose here is to curb the number of Democrats (or other opposition parties) trying to screw with the primary system.

In my view, it's revealing of how fearful the GOP must be that some unelectable nut will be the nominee. Truthfully, I can't imagine many Dems would go to that much trouble. It would only have a real effect if a lot of people did it, so voting in their primary for that purpose would just be a waste of time.

[cdmurphy]

It means nothing. Newt Gingrich himself has said that he would not vote for Ron Paul for President if Paul were the Republican nominee... but as a voter registered in Virginia, he (Gingrich) would have to sign the oath to vote in the primary.

[farplaner]

How would this even be enforceable? I mean, okay, if Democrats are really going to screw up your primary, I'm sure they have no problems doing it by lying.