How many times (if any) have you changed your political affiliation?

twice : i went from being a Republican (early 20s) to Libertarian (mid 20s - early 30s,) and now i'm an independent.

I've always been unaffiliated. Never registered as being one party or another. My views on certain topics have changed, but I'll never buy into a party line or register as one.

Grew up in a vaguely Republican household, voted Republican. My views were altered by my university experience expanding my mind, seeing things as I never had before [ and incorrectly as far as I can determine in most instances, but it is nice to have had the perspective ], registered Independent, then Democrat for one election...then back to Republican... which is, unfortunately. too weak, watered down, too wishy washy while finding the rationality of conservatism more to my liking... and would proudly consider myself a Tea Party Conservative now... with some intermittent Libertarian views...and with an open mind to evidence, logical supposition and provable fact.

I've settled on cannibalism. I have to admit it was inspired by watching the GOP routinely eat each other.

I don't know, I am still a registered GOPer but I haven't voted that way since I voted for Alan Keyes over this dink in the WH we have now.

Voted Obama and Green in 2008
Green in 2010
Libertarian and Green 2012


Now I should never say never, but..... I'm pretty sure it is safe to say I will NEVER.... never, never, never.....never? NEVER vote for a Democrat again. I did with Dink and I see where that got me.

My Presidential Election voting record:
84: Reagan (R)
88: Bush (R)
92: Perot (I)
96: Dole (R)
2000: Bush (R)
2004: Bush (R)
2008: McCain (R)
2012: Romney (R)

I don't count voting for Perot changing party afflictions though, I call that a mistake. I vote in all elections and I typically vote for Republican Senators and Representatives, however, I have voted for some Libertarians lower on the ballot.

I've changed my affiliation once, never my values.

I used to call myself a Democrat because growing up in MD everyone was a Democrat. I'm also Hispanic and everyone in my family always insisted Republicans are evil, that they only care about the rich and all racists were Republican. I hadn't really considered any political issues at all until my senior year of High School when 9/11 happened. Everything Bush did (especially the patriot act) seemed wrong according to my personal ethic, so I supported the Democrats.

But the more I listened to what the Democrats supported (looters), the more I felt like I had no party. I just wanted to be free of both parties bull****, add a little Ayn Rand & Thomas Jefferson and SHAZAM I'm a Libertarian. Being an Accountant I work with mostly (older) Republicans who insist my values and political affiliation will shift their way as I age and have children. I haven't had children, but I don't see myself growing out of wanting to be free.

My rights & liberty will always be more important to me than my life (safety) or money. I've seen the change in values in my brothers who have had children, they're very pro-government and the system even when its wrong/failing because they have a vested interest in this whole house of cards not collapsing; for their children's sake. Me I'm not so sure I'd want to bring children up in this world, I sure did before 9/11 though; Back when the future seemed so bright to my generation (the lost generation they're calling us.)

I was a Republican, then libertarian, then Republican again. I have my core set of values and ideals but unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a perfect fit. I align more with libertarian ideals, but then you throw viability into the mix....ugh.

Five times (I think). The party affiliation is only needed to vote in the primary race. If you favor the incumbent in your party then register as the opposing party to try to supply them a weaker opponent. If you oppose the incumbent and they are in the other party then register as the opposing party and try to defeat them in their primary (if they have primary opposition).

Porchev said:

My Presidential Election voting record:
84: Reagan (R)
88: Bush (R)
92: Perot (I)
96: Dole (R)
2000: Bush (R)
2004: Bush (R)
2008: McCain (R)
2012: Romney (R)

I don't count voting for Perot changing party afflictions though, I call that a mistake. I vote in all elections and I typically vote for Republican Senators and Representatives, however, I have voted for some Libertarians lower on the ballot.

Click to expand...

Mine is similar. For me, add/change:

80: Reagan
12: Ron Paul

Reagan, Perot, and Paul were the only ones I voted for. My other votes were the lesser of two evils. In the case of Paul for '12, I was going to select Romney as the lesser of two evils, until the changed the rules at the republican convention. Because of that, I didn't vote for a single republican, one democrat, and the rest were third party or write-ins.

I called the Romney campaign and RNC and told them I projected a loss because of how they pissed off so many people by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

I have changed my political affiliation twice:

(1) In 1980 I switched from registered Independent who usually voted Democratic
to registered Republican who almost never voted Democrat.

I did always vote for whoever was running against Jesse Helms.

I did also vote against one Republican Congressman who although a millionaire let the
public pay for a luxury hotel suite junket in San Francisco for him and his wife.

I did always vote Kay Hagan as a state legislator, but only due to a family connection.

With those exceptions I may never have voted for any Democrat 1980-2008.

(2) In 2008 I became a straight-ticket, Yellow-Dog Democrat.

Why? Because all 21st century Republican politicians are motherf u c k e rs, that's why.

As in, among other things. they would rather crash the international economy than try
to save the lifetime investments NOT ONLY of the rich, but also of middle class working
stiffs like, you know, teachers, firemen, small businessmen, and most of those who post
here, whether it has dawned on them or not.

If 10 years ago someone had told me that I would in 2016 vote for Hillary Clinton over
any Republican I would said they were nuts. How wrong I was then, but how right I am
to have changed my mind, because the modern Republican party bears no resemblance
to the entity which statesmen like Eisenhower and Reagan used to carry themselves to
historical greatness.

From one Viking to another.

Why don't you just vote third party? The 21st century democrats are just as bad as the republicans? Do you really consider them the lesser of two evils?

Lord of Planar said:

Mine is similar. For me, add/change:

80: Reagan
12: Ron Paul

Reagan, Perot, and Paul were the only ones I voted for. My other votes were the lesser of two evils. In the case of Paul for '12, I was going to select Romney as the lesser of two evils, until the changed the rules at the republican convention. Because of that, I didn't vote for a single republican, one democrat, and the rest were third party or write-ins.

I called the Romney campaign and RNC and told them I projected a loss because of how they pissed off so many people by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Click to expand...

I did not agree to that rule change you are referring to, because the Republicans would have been better off including Ron Paul and friends instead of pushing some of them away. On some fiscal issues Ron Paul can be great and he and his organization should have been treated with a little bit more respect, and if Romney had won, he should have had Ron Paul in the Cabinet somehow. Whether the RNC and Romney agreed with Ron Paul or not, just as a tactical move, they should have included him more since he does represent a certain faction of the Republican Party.

Porchev said:

I did not agree to that rule change you are referring to, because the Republicans would have been better off including Ron Paul and friends instead of pushing some of them away. On some fiscal issues Ron Paul can be great and he and his organization should have been treated with a little bit more respect, and if Romney had won, he should have had Ron Paul in the Cabinet somehow. Whether the RNC and Romney agreed with Ron Paul or not, just as a tactical move, they should have included him more since he does represent a certain faction of the Republican Party.

Click to expand...

I'm not so inclined to say Paul should have been given a seat in the cabinet. That would be cool, but that's not how decisions should be made. It really angered me, and many others, that they feared Paul's influence and possible shakeup of the convention, that they changed the rules in the middle of the process.

I will never forgive those responsible for such a boneheaded move. Had they payed the game fair, rather than underhanded, I would have voted for Romney. No my favorite at all, but in many ways I do like him.

When I was 6, I became a hardcore Stalinist. However, around my 10th birthday I became a laissez-faire capitalist. My sophomore year of high school I embraced Maoism, but that only lasted until around 19 when I became a Republican McCarthyist. When I was working at a fast food joint early on in life, I was an anarcho-syndicalist because I thought that I was more important than the CEO.

Now I just believe what the chick I'm screwin' at the time tells me to believe. I've also become Jewish, so I feel a little guilty about it.

Lord of Planar said:

I'm not so inclined to say Paul should have been given a seat in the cabinet. That would be cool, but that's not how decisions should be made. It really angered me, and many others, that they feared Paul's influence and possible shakeup of the convention, that they changed the rules in the middle of the process.

I will never forgive those responsible for such a boneheaded move. Had they payed the game fair, rather than underhanded, I would have voted for Romney. No my favorite at all, but in many ways I do like him.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul would have truly been good on the Cabinet, no matter why the decision would have been made. I think the reality of politics is with only two parties that win everything, there has to be compromise and inclusion of a wide range of people and ideas. That usually is the positive thing about a two party system, both theoretically cannot be too extreme otherwise they lose. It keeps both parties from going off the deep end (usually). IMHO.

Actually what would be interesting, Ron Paul as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

I would say less changed and more refined. Barring some kind of huge shift like the movement of southern segregationists from D to R, I can't imagine ever voting Republican. There is basically no interest of mine that they represent. But I've certainly altered my views on a lot of specific issues, and that sometimes manifests in various third party votes.

Lord of Planar said:

From one Viking to another.

Why don't you just vote third party? The 21st century democrats are just as bad as the republicans? Do you really consider them the lesser of two evils?

Click to expand...

The Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans, and it is not close.

Events of 2007-8 left no doubt that most Democrats WERE willing to save
the international economy from collapse and most of the Republics were
NOT willing to save it.

I also think there there should be higher income taxes, and I favor drastically
increased regulation of the financial class and its instruments, which puts me
at odds with the Libertarians, who I have no more use for than the Republicans.

I also consider Obama to have done a fine job considering the complete mess
he inherited (two wars and a tanked economy), and I think the economy would
be much better off if not for legislative sabotage by the Republican-controlled
House of Representatives.

I would rather be Libertarian Left than Democratic Party these days. Mostly due to gun and privacy rights. The problem is that there's never a candidate for high office in my group. So I remain a registered Democratic Party member and vote accordingly. I did vote that I'd changed, but maybe not so much after all. It's confusing at best.

Lord of Planar said:

And that's why you said it, right. You knew someone would see you logic...

Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or not

cpwill said:

As the man said. "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're older, you have no head."



I myself have shifted position on a few things - for example, Abortion.

Click to expand...

Isnt that a Churchill quote?

instagramsci said:

Isnt that a Churchill quote?

Click to expand...

No, he never said it, but many people attribute the quote to him.

The idea is that when people are young they are idealist. They think the world can be better, that the rich are somehow keeping the poor down, that people should be helped by the government, etc. When people grow older they learn that life is not fair, that hard work is how your make your life better and that you can't truly help someone by giving them what they need.

Of course, as someone that never was a liberal I don't happen to find much merit in the idea that idealism is a sign of someone with a heart, but just the sign of someone being foolish and naive.

Henrin said:

No, he never said it, but many people attribute the quote to him.

The idea is that when people are young they are idealist. They think the world can be better, that the rich are somehow keeping the poor down, that people should be helped by the government, etc. When people grow older they learn that life is not fair, that hard work is how your make your life better and that you can't truly help someone by giving them what they need.

Of course, as someone that never was a liberal I don't happen to find much merit in the idea that idealism is a sign of someone with a heart, but just the sign of someone being foolish and naive.

Click to expand...

That bit about hard work making your life better sounds more like idealism to me

I've known people who have worked hard their entire lives and have next to nothing to show for it

Also are you implying that I'm a liberal

When I first registered to vote I was a Republican, because my parents were. Within a decade or so, although I remained a registered Republican, I realized that I was voting for more and more Democrats, and my views on various ballot initiatives were split... sometimes I voted with conservatives, sometimes with liberals, depending upon the issue.

Somewhere in the '90's the partisan venom became untenable, with the first 4 yrs of Bill Clinton's term...a man I had not voted for, btw... being devoted to getting him out of office instead of governing the country. Pissed me off. I did vote for him the second time, and although I continue to this day voting equally for republican and democratic candidates, and voting on issues rather than ideologies, I became an Independent. I still am.

So I guess I actually "changed" my political affiliation once.