We agree that the claim of the new source that states Romney was a Democrat is factually correct, but we disagree whether it is too trivial or not to change the content of the current article. In particular, we disagree on what to do, whether to leave unchanged or not, with this article statement: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, [Romney] was registered as an Independent." 13:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I was made aware of a rumor that Romney, aside from the shifts in political positions over time, had once been a member of the Democratic party through an old law that registered independent affiliated voters as partisan depending on the primary a person chose to vote in. I looked in the wiki article and the section where I was expecting clarification of this rumor instead seem to gloss over this seemingly unimportant matter.
- "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
According to Buzzfeed.com, Romney's participation in voting for Paul Tsongas had triggered and automatic enrollment into the Democratic Party. It took his direct action to revert back to independent status. Whether it is in anyone's estimation that switching parties on a technicality is not on the level of running for office under the party affiliation is not relevant; it is an interesting bit of knowledge that would satisfy wikipedia's mission as being a repository of knowledge. The fact that at least in my example I had came to wikipedia for an answer is testament to the factoid's right of inclusion in the article. The only matter that deserve's debate is Buzzfeed's reputation as a reliable secondary source. This is the reason I bring this matter to the Romney discussion page as I am not familiar with the source, but the information the article conveys seems legitimate. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 05:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Being from Massachusetts, I know it is technically true that he was a Democrat for a fleeting amount of time between picking his ballot up and leaving the polling place, but it's far too trivial to include. Hot Stop 06:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- A technicality like this is meaningless. In any open or semi-open primary, a certain percentage of people cross party lines to vote in the other primary, sometimes because they are genuinely interested, sometimes because they want to pick the least-bad opponent in case their side loses, sometimes to cause trouble (2008's Operation Chaos, this year's Operation Hilarity). This doesn't mean those people who cross are actually members of the other party, even for a day. The important point is what the article already states: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent.[39]" And finally, your underlying presumption is incorrect: "The fact that at least in my example I had came to wikipedia for an answer is testament to the factoid's right of inclusion in the article." See WP:NOTADIR #8. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can concede the point that as a matter of general election politics, where people can vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation, that a factoid like this is superfluous to the article. However, I respectfully disagree to the assertion that such a fact is 'meaningless.' In primary politics, seemingly unimportant facts like this become the basis for voters to draw conclusions to judge a fickle matter like party loyalty especially when all other qualities or merits being relatively equal. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's been almost no coverage of this. Adding this per your reasoning is a clear WP:NPOV issue. Hot Stop 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It would be a WP:NPOV if and only if the language used to convey the fact were in someway making out this to be a big issue. The notability of Mitt Romney allows for the inclusion of this since it cannot be claim a trivial issue; "coverage" is not the prerequisite WP:NOT#NEWS. At issue is the factual claim of the article as it is written now:
- "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent.
- If in fact his registration had technically changed because of the Massachusetts' law to Democratic affiliation in 1992, then it would be untrue to allow the article to stand as is when it seems uncontested that Romney's party affiliation in fact did change. I would propose this change: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas." K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 15:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're losing the forest for the trees. The article makes clear in two places that he was an Independent for many years before becoming a Republican, and makes clear in one place that he voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primaries. That's what's important, not some obscure election legality that says he was a Democrat for two minutes between signing form #1 and form #2. There are some well-known Republican presidential candidates who really were Democrats once – Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani come to mind – but Mitt Romney is not one of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Consider changing the wording of the current article. It is wrong in either case. I presented a revised statement that does not emphasize the former 'Democratic' affiliation but implies it and passes as a true statement. Consider the merit of the edit and don't assume I playing the partisan games here. Perhaps as a disclaimer I should say that I attended a wikipedia event for the National Archives located at the Reagan Presidential library. On the same note, I care about the accuracy of the statements in wikipedia. I heard through hearsay that Romney was a former democrat which piqued my interest to do some research; unless the statement is corrected, the article currently written implies Romney was technically (absolutely) an Independent before switching to Republican which is a false statement. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 01:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Look again at the Buzzfeed piece. Romney was an Independent from August 31, 1976, to March 10, 1992. He was a "Democrat" for several minutes on March 10, 1992. Immediately after voting for Tsongas, he signs the unenrollment form, when he becomes an Independent again. He stays an Independent for another year and a half, until October 19, 1993, when he changes his registration to Republican, which he remains to this day. The article as it reads is correct. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Compare these two statements:
- Statement (1): "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
- Statement (2): "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
If we consider the assertion as true that Romney was technically registered as a Democrat (no matter how briefly) because of the statutes of the State of Massachusetts in 1992, statement (1) is false but statement (2) as constructed is true. If this is so, then either we must substitute statement (2) for statement (1) or we edit statement (1) to agree with the seemingly undisputed statement of fact that I introduced. It is simply unproductive to maintain that the article should stay the same in light of the new information presented. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 02:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- A two-minute electoral obscurity that Romney wasn't even aware of has no place in the article. There are approximations and simplifications throughout all the writing here, such as "Bain and Romney spent a year raising the $37 million in funds needed to start the new operation". Well, actually, the amount wasn't $37 million, it was $36,629,312 or some figure like that, and the period wasn't a year, it was 12 months and 19 days, or something like that. So these statements are "technically" false too. But it doesn't matter, because we are focused on what is important. What is important is that for at least 17 years, Romney self-identified and registered as an Independent, and for the 19 years since then, he has self-identified and registered as a Republican. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Wasted Time R's assessment that "The article makes clear in two places that he was an Independent for many years before becoming a Republican, and makes clear in one place that he voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primaries. That's what's important, not some obscure election legality that says he was a Democrat for two minutes between signing form #1 and form #2. There are some well-known Republican presidential candidates who really were Democrats once – Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani come to mind – but Mitt Romney is not one of them." However, I would not be opposed to a minor change in phrasing, along the lines suggested by Kjmonkey, in order to keep the article factually correct. Perhaps: "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas. By the time of Romney's own run for the Senate in 1994, he had come to align himself ...." Or some such. Dezastru (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is my proposed change taking Dezastru's suggestion into consideration:
- "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas when he briefly became de jure a Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 05:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- This change implies that he was a Democrat from the time of voting for Tsongas to 1994. Not true! Again, here is the timeline:
- August 31, 1976 – March 10, 1992: registered Independent
- two minutes during March 10, 1992: technically a Democrat while in act of voting in their primary
- March 10, 1992 – October 19, 1993: registered Independent
- October 19, 1993 – present: registered Republican
- I still think the article can stand as it is, but your "Statement (2)" above – if you substitute "momentary" for "brief" – is much better than this latest proposal. Also note there is still no consensus for including this at all – there are two opposed (myself and Hot Stop) and two in favor (you and Dezastru). Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hot Stop has not chimed in since; of course that does not mean Hot Stop agrees with the additional rationales I have provided so Hot Stop's measured views on the body of my argument for modifying statement (1) would help wrap up this matter. The point that I originally raised, as shown by the title of this talk section, was that Romney was technically a Democrat for a brief time not that he was a de facto Democrat. It is surprising to me that you acknowledge that Romney was 'momentarily' a Democrat yet feel to stand firm with the current article text that colors the accuracy of the history. It is unfortunate we cannot simply make a small change to the text as I have proposed to make the Mitt Romney article as accurate as possible. To me it seems to affirm that "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent" would be committing the bias of omission. We can use the term 'momentarily' as you suggest to read as 'momentarily became de jure' so that we can concisely capture the sense that Romney became a Democrat in the eyes of State law and not necessarily because he agreed with the Democratic party platform that Tsongas espoused. However, to make no changes to the article in light of this new information is to deprive the wiki readers of political history of greater depth of information. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 11:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles deprive readers of greater depths of information all the time. That's what they are supposed to do, summarize information! The important is kept in, the unimportant is left out. I fully agree with Hot Spot's original statement on this: "it is technically true that he was a Democrat for a fleeting amount of time between picking his ballot up and leaving the polling place, but it's far too trivial to include." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I was proposing a separate statement affirming that Romney was a Democrat, then Hot Spot would have grounds that the information was too trivial to include and created undue weight that could be seen as violating NPOV. My response to Hot Spot was the statement in the article was untrue as written and could be made true by adding a qualifier. While I agree that wikipedia articles should be written in such a way as to not overwhelm the reader by using concise prose and summaries, I do not agree with the premise that the articles must sacrifice accuracy to maintain accessibility. In fact, all wiki articles go through different developments and stages like stubs, C rated, good articles, featured, etc. The article quality improves with additional information, not by keeping simplified statements and ignoring new sources. And the issue here is not about adding text to the article that would make it unwieldy; the proposed change is only a few more words. The new source in this case presents new information and makes a bold claim as evidence by the article's title, "Mitt Romney Was A Democrat;" it is not even controversial as Romney's aides confirmed it was true in the article. However, the current wiki article implies that Romney was always an Independent or Non-affiliated voter. Again, to continue to maintain that Romney was always an Independent before turning Republican in the face of the contrary claim of the Buzzfeed article and dismiss the claim as trivial is not appropriate. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 12:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I must admit, I haven't followed this discussion all to closely, but I still don't support saying he's a Democrat as sources haven't been provided (except the buzzfeed article) highlighting this. Would we also say he was a Republican each time he voted in their primary? Hot Stop 15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an apples-to-apples comparison to use the hypothetical of Romney voting in Republican primary. The Massachusett law that applied in this case, before it was changed in 2004, formally enrolled him into the Democratic party. Had he voted in the Democratic primary after 2004, or the Republican primary for that matter, we could not in fact style Romney as either Democrat/Republican solely by his vote. Interestingly, the Buzzfeed article doesn't seem to load at the moment but interested editors can refer to this Google cached version of the source. Should we conveniently ignore the source when it corroborates the merit of editing 'Statement (1)' that is false as currently constructed? The Buzzfeed article actually is a tertiary source in this matter; the primary source in this case would be the poll workers who handled Romney's primary ballot and subsequent unenrollment and the secondary source is the Romney aide mentioned in the article that affirmed Romney's previous Democratic affiliation. Additional sources would be welcomed as contributions from other editors but not necessary to address the claim in the current wiki article that Romney was an Independent regardless of that inconvenient legal episode in this life. The wiki article should reflect this fact; the article does not need to be in conformity with the official Romney presidential campaign storyline. Otherwise, how could we maintain that this wikipedia article as the work of editors using neutral language? Such omission then becomes de facto biased and not neutral. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 19:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- The wording at the outset of this discussion -- "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, [Romney] was registered as an Independent" -- is appropriate and should remain. This Tsongas thing changing his status to being a Democrat for a few minutes is a hypertechnicality shouldn't be treated as a true party affiliation.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a non-important technicality as WastedTimeR has shown quite well. I pray that this is not a sign of the future discusions yet to be had on this article now that the presidential season is fully underway. Arzel (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
In a traditional encyclopedia or political history compendium, an asterisk and a footnote would be put next to statements that could be challenged for accuracy. Of course, wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia but the same standards for prose used to convey information on the topic should be respected. As suggested earlier, I would prefer "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas" or "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas when he momentarily became de jure a Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." as the change does not mislead the reader nor is weighted to give a false impression of an ideological change but reflects statements of fact. In the alternative, to mimic the usage of a clarifying footnote, I would proprose that we add the Buzzfeed source as a citation to the statement "In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas." If no change is made, I would reaffirm that the article commits the error by omission. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article is completely accurate as written. Romney was an Independent until the time he decided to run in the 1994 Senate race, and during that time as an Independent he voted in a Democratic primary for Tsongas. These two facts are the important ones, they have been publicly known for years, and this article has included them for years. The only new thing that the Buzzfeed piece came up with is an obscure technicality about what happened on the day he voted in the Democratic primary. It is completely unimportant. In terms of political fallout, whether Romney's being an Independent for so many years, and voting for Tsongas during that time, hurts him with conservatives or helps him with moderates is the same regardless of what kind of election day mechanism was in place to allow Independents to vote in party primaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It is good as written. The common meanings of "registered" and "member" certainly do not include choosing to vote in one democratic primary. And second, there is no one "official". North8000 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Wasted Time R: it's fine as written. This technicality is obscure and irrelevant, and probably applies to lots of people in states with open primaries. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I like the closed primary system for many reasons, including that it's pure and simple. But I think there's a big difference between Romney voting once in a Democratic primary with his affiliation technically and briefly changing because of it and someone who instead actually and willingly switches parties (or to an actual party). It's probably still worth mentioning his Tsongas vote, but not getting lost in party affiliation technicalities. My proposal would be to instead mention that the primary was open by substituting in what I have placed in brackets: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In [Massachusetts' 1992 open presidential primary], he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas." —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be careful about saying that, because Massachusetts didn't have a true open primary back then. Per this Boston Globe article abstract: "Though registered Democrats cannot vote in the Republican primary, unenrolled voters may do so." It was probably semi-closed or some term like that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for the input. For a while I thought I was at an impasse with Wasted Time R because the key point of disagreement seems to be one interpretation, not unlike the ongoing Constitutional debate. Do we loosely or strictly interpret? I do acknowledge that many phrases in our American lexicon lend themselves to common interpretation and in the case of an article written about an American politician such consideration should be given due weight. But what I hope everyone sees here is that the editing process is not so black and white and that due consideration should be given for valid arguments. Sgt. R.K. Blue's suggestion of adding [Massachusetts' 1992 open presidential primary] is an example of what seems like a black and white edit that many editors would accept as valid. But as Wasted Time R correctly points out, the understanding of terms such as open primary as commonly understood is not quite applicable due to the circumstances of the time and place in the source cited. Likewise, I would humbly impress upon everyone that though being registered a Democrat and being a member of the Democratic Party are different animals, we should not be afraid of including these terms when they are properly expressed. Also, I would like to suggest that as editors we may fall to the bias of how we perceive a thing to be because of our unique experience; in this case, those that have voted under particular state jurisdictions will perceive party affiliation as a product their circumstance and apply that understanding to general process of party affiliation where no such general consensus exist (aside from perhaps donating money) because each State GOP/Democrat party sets up their own rules and often in partnership with local and state jurisdictions.
Therefore, to move forward to a consensus, I implore everyone to look at the following options and add either yes or no response depending on the merits; ideally, the option with all yes responses will constitute consensus. i know it doesn't always work that way.
- Original article text: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
Option 1) Keep as is. No changes.
Option 2) Keep text as is but add the Buzzfeed source as reference to end of the second sentence. (This allows the reader who wants to know the unabridged version to find it without adding contested verbiage).
- yes K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌
- okay with but it may get challenged as not a WP:RS when article goes up for FAC soon ... in which case it will get pulled out Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, pointless & questionable reliability of source Fat&Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Weak yes But #1 is preferable North8000 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, Agree with F&H Arzel (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Very Weak Yes, as the source isn't the best --PnakoticInquisitortalk 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Option 3) Add a clarifying phrase to original text: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
Option 4) Reword text (for better prose) to read: "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas when he momentarily became de jure a registered Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." (This wording implies that Romney was registered as an independent from 1976 to 1994, except for a momentary switch.)
- yes K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌
- no and your italics should be removed, the text has to stand on its own Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, as #3, but more so. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No Numerous problems. Deceptive at best. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- No Arzel (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, very undue since meaningless technicality. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Option 5)???
K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't give up, I'll give you that. #3 and #4 have already been opposed above by myself, Hot Spot, Milowent, Arzel, North8000, Coemgenus, and Sgt. R.K. Blue, with only one or two editors in favor of them. You're going to keep asking and asking and hope people get tired of the discussion and go away? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- For #4, there is a difference; I added the word registered as agreement with North8000#top's point. Frankly, I don't submit too many edits to wiki articles and this proposed edit here seemed clear cut to me. But as yourself and the other editors that follow the discussion on the Mitt Romney article has shown me, I can't necessarily assume something is clear cut. In any case, as you have seen the care I have put into addressing objections and submitting revised proposals, I'd like to have the feeling that the editors who choose to comment have at given some consideration to what was proposed and not rush to pass judgment like some of these laws that Congress passes nowadays without reading. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- The entire debate is ridiculous nit-picking, apparently – based on several comments in the discussionr – being pushed for political reasons. Insisting on inclusion of this minor factoid in an encyclopedia biography is equivalent to insisting – in the name of "complete accuracy" – that a biographical statement such as "he was raised in Bloomfield, Michigan" be changed to read "he was raised in Bloomfield, Michigan, except for a one-month period in summer 1956 when the family lived in a hotel in Troy, Michigan, during renovations to their house". Fat&Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You have a valid point in your example that the exception, if true, would not be significant unless we had information (perhaps in an autobiography) that shows this one-month period was when he had discovered he wanted to be a politician. Likewise, this registered Democrat business would seem out of place in the article except for it adds depth to the current text and explains the legal implication arising from Romney's vote in the Democratic primary. Perhaps someone could gather from this that Romney was adamantly independent and would not entertain being registered as a Democrat for more than a minute. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is an inaccurate analogy. If it was "he never left Bloomfield, Michigan until age so and so" and it was left out that he did in fact leave Michigan then it would be analogous. The common understanding of 'raised' does not indicate the person never left the confines of that location during their entire early life. The analogy is absurd. I understand trying to use the analogy as the fact does not mean anything and to add it does not add anything to the article (therefore may seem absurd itself). However, the point is that the factoid makes the current statement false, not that the factoid is important.76.109.170.158 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the fact that Romney was a registered independant who voted democrat, and that his state's rules meant that he was at that time a democrat, are absolutely notable enough for inclusion in the article. To omit this notable piece of information would be unencyclopedic. — GabeMc (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Most of that is already in the article. Why is the minor technicality, that has no actual impact, of extreme importance? Arzel (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- And where in state law does it declare that somebody who takes a Democrat ballot in a primary IS a Democrat? North8000 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- What does impact have to do with this discussion? I think everyone is missing the point that the statement as it was is inaccurate. If you're going to say he was a registered independent until x date even though he was not, for however briefly, you're making a false statement. Obviously it's a ridiculous rule and doesn't (read: shouldn't) mean anything to anyone who may or may not vote in elections, but that's not the point. The point is it makes the statement currently there false. I say remove the entire part about him being an independent if no one agrees with putting in (in some form) the caveat that it's technically inaccurate. 76.109.170.158 (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The statement is true. We don't know how many Republican or Democratic primaries he may have voted in between August 1976 and October 1993, but in every case he maintained his status as an Independent. The technical-electoral mechanism by which this happened is not important, what's important is that he wanted to stay an Independent. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that one's party affiliation is, by definition, whatever that person says it is. End of story. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Adding that he was a Dem is WP:UNDUE per Wasted Time R.– Lionel (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is way overblown. If Mr. Romney wants to claim that he cast an actual valid vote for Paul Tsongas, then yes, fine, he's totally free to claim that.
However, by the same token, he must necessarily (according to the Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution of the United States of America) have been a member of the Democratic party at the moment when he cast that vote.
He can't have it both ways. Seriously, I'm not sure what we're arguing about here? This isn't rocket science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.193.3 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The Constitution makes no statements at all about "political parties" nor is anyone required in any way to be a member of any "political party." The SCOTUS has never made any such rulings about being a member of a "political party." And many states have "open primaries" where anyone of any party may vote in any single primary. Sorry -- too many wrong claims to simply sit there unchallenged. Collect (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The US constitution (to which I assume you are referring) is largely irrelevant to this issue, as is SCOTUS. The state in which Romney actually voted has laws/rules that define anyone who votes for a democrat as a democrat, at least at the time of the vote. Its really that simple. — GabeMc (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)