So it's time to change my voter registration again
 

So I'm willing to take suggestions for party affiliation. Right now I'm thinking Pirate Party of Pennsylvania. The information wants to be free and introducing science to decision making...

In Virginia, the primaries are open to all registered voters. So there is not much reason to register for one party or the other. In fact, I'm not sure if you can register for a party in Virginia.

Why do you have to change parties? Why does it matter if your name is on one list or another? Can't you still vote any way you want?

As someone who comes from a differently organised political system, the party registration thing is pretty odd.

We didn't have to register in Michigan

My strategy is to register with the opposing party so I can break their ranks from within by voting contrary to the party line.

In PA the primary is closed so if you want to vote you need to be in one of the majors. I registered Democrat for Bernie but after this weeks flag draped militaristic sideshow funded by still too big to fail banks and other business interests on the government tit, I will not be hanging with Hill.

So in GB you guys sort of identify with Labor or Tory but don't have to actually belong to a party?

You'll be changing your user title too then, I guess.

Oh crap! Jimbo help!

I did this too, on advise from my amazing and now late ex father in law. A couple of years ago I changed back. Now I'm too apathetic to care about politics. Sad.

To vote for a party leader you have to be a dues-paying member of the party, or affiliate organisation (so, some affiliated unions have voting rights in Labour leadership elections). Sometimes there are minimum membership periods before you can vote. It's usually a matter for the parliamentary party (the sitting MPs of that party) to decide if there will be a challenge - so, there is currently a challenge going through on the Labour Party leadership - in order to be able to challenge the candidate must have so many nomination signatures from Labour MPs. If they get enough signatures and are able to challenge that then goes to the general party membership to vote.

But those are internal party elections. They don't happen as a matter of course as part of the general election system. Once a party has elected their leader, that leader stays as leader until they choose to stand down, or are challenged in a leadership bid by someone else in the party, which often happens in the wake of a bad election loss, or in the very rare case where a leader loses their parliamentary seat in the general election.

It's an entirely separate thing from the general election in which everybody can vote.

Although the focus is usually on the parties and party leaders, we're not voting for the Prime Minister in our elections - each small constituency votes for its MP to represent them in parliament. The leader of the party that wins the most seats in parliament is then the de facto prime minister and can form a government. If the prime minister resigns, his/her party then decides who their successor will be. Some people will be voting for an MP based purely on what party they belong to, others will be voting based purely on the person themselves, regardless of which party they belong to, some will vote with the party leadership in mind, most will vote with a combination of those factors in mind - but the only person they are actually voting for is their constituency MP. The only people that actually vote for the prime minister are the prime minister's own constituents who put him/her in parliament as their MP and the party members who voted for their party leadership, none of whom were voting in an election for prime minister.

Just remember: a vote that's not for Hillary is a vote for trump. Unfortunately

Does British law allow heir(s) apparent/presumptive to run for MP and possibly become both Prime Minister and Monarch (e.g. Prime Minister-in-Queen)?

That is an all too familiar aspect of voting in this country.

Familiar and hilarious. You must vote for the second worst person you can think of so the worst won't be President. This only makes sense to those who are religiously (thanks UT) devoted to party.

It's not hilarious; it's sad. But it's true. It's something that Bernie recognized, which is why he became a Democrat to run, and is switching back to independent now, while also supporting Hillary in the Hillary vs Trump choice.

The parties have made the process, so the process favors the parties. That's why I don't resent Bernie for using Democratic apparatus for his campaign, and then leaving the party. He didn't make the rules, he just used them as best he could.

Unless you actually think that a third party candidate can get a majority of electoral votes* this November (and I'll concede that if it can happen, this is the most likely year for it to happen), then this is a choice between two candidates.

* Even a plurality would go to the House.

I respect my peeps that don't want to vote for either Clinton or Trump...many of them have given clear and fair reasons for doing so. Can't argue with that. Ultimately, this is a two-man race though, unless Johnson hits 15% and can pull a Jesse Ventura.