🚀 go-pugleaf

>>In article <kupeakINNpuf@earth.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu
(Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>>>Being able to sign petitions after
>>>either voting in the primary or signing another petition would
>>>allow one person two stabs at putting a name on the ballot.

>In article <0ZLE9Z@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>What's wrong with that?

In article <6388@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay
Maynard) writes:
>Because it goves someone more than one vote.

But a "stab at putting a name on the ballot" is not the same in my
mind as a vote.  The former says "I think this person should be
allowed in the contest"; the latter says "I think this person is the
best one in the contest".  Signing a petition for a candidate doesn't
obligate you to vote for that candidate.  I think Perot should have
the opportunity to run, even though I might not vote for him.  If I
had known that voting in the primary would restrict me from signing
petitions, I might not have done it.

I think we ought to be able to vote in more than one primary.  Is
there some principle that says a person can not belong to more than
one party?