zlacker

Yes, Americans in most states indicate their party affiliation when they register to vote. This doesn't affect who they are allowed to vote for in the official "General Election" that actually chooses who wins the election, but sometimes does affect whether one is allowed to vote in the "Primary Election" held by the individual political parties to determine who their candidate will be.

The confusing part is that the "Primary Elections" (which are held according to the rules of the party) are often run by the counties according to state rules, and are combined with other local elections that are open to all registered voters. Some parties in some states only allow those registered as belonging to their party to vote in their primary, while others allow "unaffiliated" voters to participate. The result is an mish-mash of private party rules and official state rules.

Party affiliation and primary elections have an odd semi-official status. Statistically, a little over 2/3 of the otherwise eligible voters are "registered to vote". Of these, about 1/3 are registered as belonging to the Democratic Party, about 1/3 are registered to the Republican Party, and about 1/3 are "unaffiliated". Something less than 5% of voters are registered with a "third party", and in recent history candidates from these parties haven't played much of a role except as a "spoiler".

Anyway, the current situation is that both Republican and Democratic parties have just officially chosen their candidates. The Republicans have allowed the public to "democratically" chose Donald Trump, much to the distress of many prominent members of the party who feel he does not espouse their values. The Democrat Party has chosen Hillary Clinton, but many (including many supporters of Bernie Sanders) feel she was actually selected by the party as their nominee well in advance, and that the "Primary Election" was being treated as a formality rather than a selection process.

The "General Election" for President happens this November 2016. All registered voters are allowed to vote for whomever they choose at this point. They can even write in candidates who do not appear on the ballot. But unless something unexpected happens to Clinton or Trump before then (or unless this is finally the year that a 3rd Party candidate breaks through) one of them will be elected to office at that point, and will begin serving in January 2017.

>>nkurz+(OP)
Party declaration in the primary is public record. If you hold a politically sensitive job, and your state requires a declaration of party affiliation, you might not be able to safely vote as you please in the primary, because your employer might examine the voter rolls and use parallel constructions to fire the people with the "wrong" party affiliation.

All the adults in my family felt the fix was in for Clinton since 2008, as we assumed that she made a deal with the DNC regarding Obama's candidacy. If he lost, she would go ahead in 2012, and if he won, she'd go in 2016. So now it's 2016. I presume that the Clintons and the DNC have mutually-assured destruction levels of dirt on each other by now, so they must honor their deal. We never had any expectation whatsoever that any other candidate would get a fair shake. Nothing that has occurred since 2008 obviously contradicts the hypothesis. Secretary of state is #5 in the line of emergency presidential succession, and a perfect resume-builder for someone who didn't snag an elected office during the previous cycle.

We suspected that O'Malley was offered something in exchange for being Clinton's foil through primary season, and that he was able to bow out early, because former independent Sanders stepped in to fill his role as the token opposition, blissfully unaware as a party outsider that the fix was already in.

I am even now unconvinced that D. Trump was not a secret co-conspirator in the President Hillary Clinton plan. I'm not sure anyone expected the R party to actually select him, either.