Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: Cross-party voting

Your Take: Cross-party voting

We asked for your take on cross-party voting – when do you vote party line? And when might you mix your vote? Our take is that cross-party voting is a signal that more and more Americans are putting country before party. And yet, some people believe loyalty to their political party is the best solution – and the patriotic one.

Here’s what you shared with us. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.


I voted Republican in every presidential election until 2016. My conscience wouldn’t let me vote for Donald Trump and I wasn’t crazy about Hillary Clinton, so I voted third party, putting country over party. During the Trump years, seeing the horrific decline of the Republican Party, I became an independent. I voted for Biden in 2020 and I am happy I did. - RH Shallenberg

I used to vote along party lines. It's how I was raised. However, I now always put country before party. Iit's important to look at the issues and individuals independent of party. - Mark Pommerville

Every time I vote. My country, my state, my city and county come first. I choose the best qualified candidate – Hillary Clinton, for example. The party usually has been irrelevant. Of course in 2020 and 2022, and perhaps the foreseeable future, it is dangerous to democracy (it's capitulation to authoritarianism) to allow any Republican to win. Their party is promoting Donald Trump's Big Lie, using their power to appoint anti-democracy judges, pushing laws that endanger the lives as well as the freedom of women with difficult reproductive situations. So in this case the party is terribly relevant. Supporting my country means rejecting the Republican Party. -Janet Basu

I take voting seriously. I have been voting for 50-plus years. I have rarely voted for an incumbent, mainly because I do not see them doing anything meaningful for the people (schmucks like me, the 99 percent). So, to answer your question, I have always put the “99 percent” over all politics. Unfortunately our “leaders” don’t. They put themselves above all. -Mike Dugdell

I've always put country over party. For me, party is only relevant because most local elections and all the way up to the level of senator or president are decided in the primaries in my state, as in far too many other parts of our country. I'm delighted that No Labels is producing a moderate alternative, as I feel far too many loyal Americans have been duped by parties and media to either join the extremists or leave the parties, and thus often waste their votes. -Mike O.

I am fundamentally an independent. I like to consider myself a Weld Republican. However, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney. I have voted for Democrats. My intention is to put the country first. I simply believe in fiscal responsibility. However, I believe in being socially responsible as well. -Craig Lindell

I have voted “the other side” many times in my life, but not once in this century. I did not feel vilified until then. The party wasn’t lockstep until then. I vote for, not against, but since that time I have not found myself for anything that party seemed to almost unanimously endorse. And as time goes by, that party is less for anything and totally against anything not proposed by them. I feel abandoned by half the politicians in the country. -Jeanene Louden

I'm sorry to say that since 2020 I will no longer consider any GOP candidate since the GOP no longer permits divergence within its ranks. This does not mean that I am satisfied with the Democrats either. They have also been drifting toward financial corruption for some time. At this point I think that ranke- choice voting has the best chance for salvaging any real democracy in the USA. -Bill Carr

I have always voted as an independent. That changed about 10 years ago when I noticed a need to vote in early primaries and retain Democratic leaders in our area. Then in 2016, I chose to vote for a third party because I didn't want Trump or Clinton to have my vote. I have had people tell me that my voting for a third party hurts but in the incident with Clinton, I believe the Electoral College screwed her. -Pamela Haddock

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the founding documents of the United Nations. Sadly, the United States has shown hypocrisy in failing to practice what it has preached to the rest of the world for a significant part of the 20th century. So, yes, I have voted for third parties since I want real political parties instead of the sham elections and parties presented in the United States. It was interesting to watch how African leaders in nations with one-party systems would react to the U.S. criticism of their systems. But Julius Nyerere was correct when he said: “The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.” -Micheal Bannerman

I have voted on both sides of the aisle from state representative races down to local races. I choose based on character and on issues that candidates represent in alignment with my personal views. I have always voted Democratic for the House, Senate, and president (50 years). My most recent campaign contributions were to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, and in both cases I put country over party (we don’t agree on many cultural issues, but both have good character and share respect for democracy and the law – a scarce and valuable combination that should be rewarded). - George Felt

Of course I've voted for "the other side" Because I had to register as something, I chose Republican and have seldom if ever voted straight-ticket. And I certainly won't this November. Only a person incapable of thinking for themselves would do that in my opinion. An a** is an a** and both the Democrats and Republicans have an abundance. -Lorine Nolte

Until about five years ago, I could be counted on to vote reliably for candidates from one party. It was easier to assume that the party was doing a good job vetting candidates than to do the work myself. As I became involved in Mormon Women for Ethical Government, I came to see that sort of straight party voting as problematic and have since left my party and taken on the identity of a principled voter. Like so many other MWEG members, it has been enormously freeing to stop letting a political party take away my power by making my choices for me. I am much better informed about the issues, I am very strategic about which candidates I vote for, and I regularly vote for candidates from both major parties. I can’t imagine going back to relying on partisan interests to pick my candidates for me. -Emma Petty Addams

Read More

The Great Political Finger Trap

Protesters gather near the White House on November 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. The group Refuse Fascism held a rally and afterwards held hands in a long line holding yellow "Crime Scene Do Not Cross" tape along Lafayette Square near the White House.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Great Political Finger Trap

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier this year, a YouGov poll was released exploring sentiments around political violence. The responses raised some alarm, with 25% of those who self-identified as “very liberal,” and nearly 20% of those polled between the ages of 18 and 29, saying that violence was sometimes justified “in order to achieve political goals.” Numerous commentators, including many within the bridging space, lamented the loss of civility and the straying from democratic ideals. Others pointed to ends justifying means, to cases of injustice and incivility so egregious, as they saw it, that it simply demanded an extreme response.

But amidst this heated debate over what is justified in seeking political ends, another question is often overlooked: do the extreme measures work? Or, do acts of escalation lead to a cycle of greater escalation, deepening divisions, and making our crises harder to resolve, and ultimately undermining the political ends they seek?

Keep Reading Show less
Military Spectacle and Presidential Power: From Parade to Policy

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House on December 08, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Military Spectacle and Presidential Power: From Parade to Policy

On June 14, I wrote Raining on Trump’s Military Parade, an article about the Washington, D.C. military parade that marked both the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump’s 79th birthday. The event revived debates about the politicization of military spectacle, fiscal priorities, and democratic norms. Six months later, those same themes are resurfacing in new forms — not on the National Mall, but in Congress, the courts, and foreign policy.

The House of Representatives passed the roughly $900 billion military policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026, in a bipartisan vote of 312-112 on Wednesday. The bill now heads to the Senate for approval. Key provisions of the legislation include:

Keep Reading Show less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep Reading Show less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep Reading Show less