How do you decide who to vote for?

[Ruby Slippers]

I've become more active lately in my county party. As a result, I've been asked to join in their various efforts on behalf of candidates -- make phone calls, go door to door with literature, march in parades, staff a booth at the county fair, and other similar activities. Since I personally don't like phone calls or uninvited visitors and don't attend parades and county fairs, I've declined all the "invitations." But the party faithful seem to think these activities are crucial in winning the hearts and minds of voters. So that's why I want to know how Dopers make their choices.

I freely admit that I almost always vote a straight party ticket. But I don't think that's as lazy and uninformed as it may sound. For starters, I have a pretty good idea of what my party stands for -- its guiding principles and core values. An individual who chooses to run under that banner is likely to share many of those values, or at least a lot more likely than the opponent. In addition, I find most political advertisements to be either blatant name-calling or carefully scripted sound bites that simply tell me what "they" think will push my buttons.

So how do others make their decision? Reading campaign literature? Attending meet and greets? Reading newspapers? Although I'd like to hear from all parts of the political spectrum, I'd be most interested in hearing from those who consider themselves to be independent -- that is, those who do not feel any strong commitment to any party. Do you have a few selected issues that decide the matter for you? Do you try to "take the measure" of each candidate? And I'd also be interested to hear what you think about the traditional methods -- the phone banks, the canvasses, the parades, the county fairs. Do you feel these activities are at least minimally valuable or are they pretty much a waste of time and energy?

[Chronos]

Absent any other information, I'll vote by party, also, for the same reasons you lay out. And for big-ticket races like governor or US Congress, I'll actively seek out information on the candidates and their positions. For the more local races, though, if you want me to vote for you, I consider it your responsibility to tell me why. If a candidate for a city or county level position, or for the state legislature, of the opposite party gives me a good reason to vote for them (around here, that's most likely to be affiliation with the university, since education is a high priority for me), then I will. But I won't seek out that information for every little race.

[carnivorousplant]

As Chronos, I usually vote party for the reasons you stated.
In the primary election, I listen to the candidates. The guy who ran against Blanche Lincoln was running on the "Blanche Lincoln is a Dukey Butt" platform.
I hate her voting to continue funding the war, but I'm not going to vote Republican, and with nothing constructive from her primary opponent, I voted for her then and will in the general election.

[BigT]

The last time I voted, I just went with the incumbent unless I knew they were doing a bad job, or knew bad information about them. This time, though, I will likely be more party minded, especially with Congress. When it comes to more local stuff, though, I'm not sure party matters at all. Heck, last time more than half the offices had Democrat vs Independent, which seems odd for a place that usually votes Republican. But this time, at least, I can actually look up stuff. Last time, I naively didn't realize the local and national stuff was on the same election.

Yeah, it was my first time voting. Not because of any voter apathy, but because the 2006 midterms didn't even cross my mind, and I couldn't figure out how I was supposed to do it back in 2004, as I was away at college.

[carnivorousplant]

BigT, where is "Hickville"?

[appleciders]

For candidates, it's usually a matter of figuring out if there are any credible 3rd party candidates I want to vote for because the Republican isn't an option. I wish it were, but the only thing that Republicans claim to stand for that I believe in is financial responsibility, and they haven't actually done that for quite a while.

For ballot measures, I usually read a few debates on the issue. More than once, I've been informed by what I've read on the Dope, actually.

[Measure for Measure]

I'm a Democrat. I read the local freesheets for endorsements. At the national level, I will vote Democratic, as moderate Republicans have been driven out of Washington.

[Boyo Jim]

I used to be much more choosy, and tried to evaluate candidates individually. But IMO some years back the Republicans drank the acid-laced Kool Aid, so now I vote straight Democratic out of fear of crazy Republicans.

[BobLibDem]

It's like driving a car: D to go forward, R for reverse. I vote straight Democratic for the offices that matter, for the local yokels I'll read their bios and stands on impartial web sites, if I can find them.

[kopek]

Read, visit various campaign stops/events when I can, check voting records. Party affiliation doesn't mean much to me; Reagan the Republican was basically Reagan the Democrat but his voting record gave a truer sense of what he would be as President.

I used to be much more choosy, and tried to evaluate candidates individually. But IMO some years back the Republicans drank the acid-laced Kool Aid, so now I vote straight Democratic out of fear of crazy Republicans.

As frightened as I am of many Republican candidates, the thought of a one-party system scares me even more. And Democratic control doesn't mean what it used to. President Obama didn't need one single Republican vote to get his full agenda through/ahead but in the end even a lot of Democrats couldn't back our choice of leader. So now even more than in my youth I just have to invest the time and split my ticket as I see best.

[Ruby Slippers]

Thanks to all for the feedback so far. It's good to know I'm not the only one voting a straight party ticket. I'd still be interested to know if any of you see any value in parades, county fairs, phone banks, and door-to-door canvassing. I see a lot of value in candidate appearances, mostly at open meet and greet settings, but little or no value in the intrusive and bothersome phone banks and canvassing. They might have been useful in earlier times but these days, I think there are better ways to get your message out -- like Facebook.

[kopek]

Thanks to all for the feedback so far. It's good to know I'm not the only one voting a straight party ticket. I'd still be interested to know if any of you see any value in parades, county fairs, phone banks, and door-to-door canvassing. I see a lot of value in candidate appearances, mostly at open meet and greet settings, but little or no value in the intrusive and bothersome phone banks and canvassing. They might have been useful in earlier times but these days, I think there are better ways to get your message out -- like Facebook.


Can't say about Facebook but personal appearances and pressing the flesh are still the best bet for Republicans running for office. Getting their message out, or just their faces for that matter, helps them win "softer" Democrats/Libertarians like myself and bolster turnout within the Party. Phone banks look to be mixed; they piss off as many people as they attract. But whatever means you use, it doesn't look to help Democrats as much for some reason. And I've never understood quite why.

[DianaG]

Anyone who calls me risks my vote (not really a problem since I got rid of my landline), and anyone who knocks on my door loses it, full stop. Howsabout you give me your address, and we'll discuss the issues at your place when it's convenient for me?

[davidm]

Anyone who calls me risks my vote (not really a problem since I got rid of my landline), and anyone who knocks on my door loses it, full stop. Howsabout you give me your address, and we'll discuss the issues at your place when it's convenient for me?That's your criteria for determining who should decide the future of this country? :confused:

What do you do if both candidates knock on your door? Completely remove yourself from the political process?

[DianaG]

The only criteria? Of course not. But bothering me at home is unacceptably intrusive and disrespectful, and I let them know that by doing it they've lost my vote, in the hope that maybe they'll cut it out.

And sure. At the 'knocking on your door' level we're usually talking about city politicians anyway. Since I don't own a home, have a kid in the schools or anticipate needing a liquor license any time soon, I have no problem with not voting for either of them.

[dalej42]

I live in Arizona. I know I'm going to watch every Democrat lose except my House member in my gerrymandered district. At least I don't have to worry about robocalls since there aren't any competitive races this year.

For the local races, I vote by party even though I'm unfamiliar with most of the names. In the non partisan school board races, I google each candidate very carefully to make sure none of them are creationist or some other type of nutjob. For the judicial races, unless there is a judge who has been in the news, I tend to ignore these races.

[Evil Captor]

I vote pretty much the straight party ticket except at the local level, there I go to the League of Women Voters site or other relatively impartial source and check out their positions on issues. I also watched the televised debates for the Georgia senatorial candidates ... I'll have no problem voting for Michael Thurmond for Senate, he sounds like a good Democrats, the others are waaaay off message as far as I am concerned.

Basically, living in an Atlanta metro suburb, I wind up voting for candidates who never win, but what the hell, it absolves me of responsibility for the antics of those who do win, which is a very good thing. Gotta tell you though, at the state level Georgia has had some pretty sane Republicans ... if Nathan Deal wins the governorship, I think the state will toddle along just fine. If Roy Barnes, the Dem, wins, I think the same will happen, perhaps toddling along slightly better but both are long time Georgia state government politicoes who know their stuff. Kinda like Sonny Perdue was. The Libertarian candidate for governor, though ... has no interest in governing really. Just wants to dismantle the state. I don't think he has much of a chance, and I'm grateful for that.

[davidm]

The only criteria? Of course not. But bothering me at home is unacceptably intrusive and disrespectful, and I let them know that by doing it they've lost my vote, in the hope that maybe they'll cut it out.

And sure. At the 'knocking on your door' level we're usually talking about city politicians anyway. Since I don't own a home, have a kid in the schools or anticipate needing a liquor license any time soon, I have no problem with not voting for either of them.Aren't you contradicting yourself? You say that it's not the only criteria, but then emphasize that knocking on your door will lose your vote. So once that person knocks on your, that's become your only criteria, and issues be damned.

[DianaG]

Um, no. You see, assuming that they DON'T bother me in my home, I vote based on issues.

But yes, once they bother me at home I will leave that slot blank rather than vote for them. If they can't manage to be respectful of my personal time and space, I don't have high hopes for them in terms of policy setting.

[davidm]

Straight ticket this year. Sorry, but the Republicans have gone batshit insane.

[Lightnin']

I usually try to avoid voting straight party ticket. However, my other rule is that I don't vote for politicians who use attack ads- tell me why I should vote for you, not why I should vote against your opponent!

It's going to be a rough year to follow those two guidelines.

[Lanzy]

Step one is to eliminate republicans.

Then I usually end up flipping a coin if there is more than one choice left.

[Chronos]

For ballot measures, I usually read a few debates on the issue. More than once, I've been informed by what I've read on the Dope, actually. Those are generally pretty easy for me: The state publishes a pamphlet for all voters that (among other things) lists the full text of every measure, followed by a one-page pro and anti argument, and then a half-page rebuttal, written by various pillars of the community (state legislators and the like). In one case I did come to the Dope with some factual questions about one of the issues, but usually the three pages of arguments is enough.

Back to candidates, public appearances don't sway me at all if they're just parades and photo-ops, but for some of these events, the candidates will take questions from the folks they're gladhanding, and that can be helpful. And of course something like a speech or debate is important, though you seldom see much of that from the folks running for county dogcatcher.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Ruby, I can help with the second part of your question.

Yes. Phone calls, door knocking, all those things matter a lot. That's the actual meat and potatoes of running a campaign. Knocking doors goes above all else, phone calls go next, and everything else is a distant third. I'm not a high visibility guy.

[Ruby Slippers]

LOUNE, are you saying that phone calls and door knocking help YOU decide how to vote? Or are you speaking from personal experience seeing those activities make a difference? I know many long-timers in local politics swear that they're crucial. I just haven't seen any data that convinces me. I'm not sure I could be convinced to participate, but I'd at least be less grumpy about the requests if I believed it would work.

[Frank]

I decide who to vote for by deciding which candidate's beliefs most align with mine. Mostly, but not always, that's a Democrat. As I mentioned over in the Missouri thread, I think this is the first election I've ever voted for all Democrats.

As far as get out the vote efforts, and campaigning, well . . . Honestly, most citizens don't pay the attention to politics and don't know about politics to the extent that we who hang out in political forums on the SDMB do. For those people, it's simply advertising. While door hangers and robo-calling and flyers in the mail and ads on TV and radio do annoy me, I'm not going to vote against someone I like simply because they are quite properly attempting to get their name in front of the great number of people who vote based on their whim of the moment.

The apocryphal response of Adlai Stevenson to a woman who called out, "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" rings absolutely true: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

[Snnipe 70E]

Figure out which is the worst canidate the vote for the other. If I can not descide between the two major party canidate I vote 3rd party.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

LOUNE, are you saying that phone calls and door knocking help YOU decide how to vote? Or are you speaking from personal experience seeing those activities make a difference? I know many long-timers in local politics swear that they're crucial. I just haven't seen any data that convinces me. I'm not sure I could be convinced to participate, but I'd at least be less grumpy about the requests if I believed it would work.

Oh, no. I'm approaching it from the other side of the equation.

[Locrian]

I use Rock, Paper, Scissors against the ballot on each Proposition. Since it's paper, I USUALLY win. :D

For people, it's who's the lesser evil as always.

For Propositions, does it cost money? Then no.

[LawMonkey]

For me, if you attack your opponent as "not a true conservative" or "a Washington liberal" or, for that matter, as a "conservative" or a "Tea Partier," you've lost me. If all you can do to make your point is emphasize how much your opponent is in the opposing tribe, you're not really trying to get my vote.

Thus, this year, I voted for a bunch of people who have no chance of winning, and a bunch of other people who ran unopposed.

[Jack Batty]

I generally vote the party line. If there is a candidate in my party who I really hate for whatever reason, I'll abstain.

For positions where no party is identified (the Second Assistant Dog Catcher At Large type things), I'll usually cast a vote for the candidate with most difficult to pronounce last name.

[Peremensoe]

Other things being equal (which of course they wouldn't be), a door knock would make me more likely to support a candidate. Someone putting in the time and sweat trudging door to door is a greater display of commitment than phone bank calls or broadcast advertising. I like talking to humans.

[John D'Adamo]

This year, the decision is pretty clear: Moderate centrist Democrats who don't really correspond to my more liberal views on the issues or batshit insane Republicans. I tend to choose the former. At the local level, however, I research the candidates carefully, because it is a completely different animal.

[Cliffy]

I don't have cites for this, but my reading suggests that DianaG is exactly the opposite of how most people behave. Canvassing and phone calls don't change many minds, but they are incredibly effective at moving people from rooting for Candidate A to voting for Candidate A. I'm quite shy but I make phone calls and I knock on doors every cycle because it's too important to just leave to fate. Getting the vote out is the name of the game, especially when the presidency is not at stake. It is how you win elections. So Ruby, I urge you to put your reservations aside and join me on the phones over the next several days. Unless you're a Republican of course -- then by all means, sit this one out.

--Cliffy

[gonzomax]

Knocking on doors is supposed to help people get stimulated enough to actually vote. I doubt it can change ideas. Some local candidates need literature to be passed door to door just to develop name recognition.
I walk too damn far every election. Walking on concrete makes my little legs tired.

[Nametag]

I vote a straight Democratic Party ticket -- nobody who's willing to align themselves with the Republican Party believes in anything that I do. In local nonpartisan elections, I read interviews, surveys, and endorsements published by the newspapers and political organizations, and choose whoever I agree with most. Ballot propositions, I read the text and the arguments in the official pamphlet.

Primary elections I handle the same way as nonpartisan elections, except that I tend to select candidates who can beat the likely Republican nominee, rather than the one who aligns best with my beliefs -- hence, Obama instead of Kucinich. In San Francisco elections, I tend to prefer pragmatic candidates who actually know what the office can accomplish, and not idealistic candidates who run for Supervisor on a foreign policy platform.

I ignore most campaign mailers, seldom get phone calls, and nobody knocks on my door.

[Thudlow Boink]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You say that it's not the only criteria, but then emphasize that knocking on your door will lose your vote. So once that person knocks on your, that's become your only criteria, and issues be damned.It can't be your "only criteria," because "criteria" is plural.

Personally, I think the phone calls are as much of a turn-off than the knock on the door. At least going door to door actually requires some effort on their part.

[Thudlow Boink]

My answer to the OP's question:

I probably should put more effort into finding out about the various candidates—but I'm not sure if it's worth it, and it would just leave me more pissed off when the wrong person wins.

So, I try to pay attention to the major races and candidates, but I don't go too far out of my way to learn about all the different races. Sometimes, what I know about the candidates renders the choice an easy one. Other times, I don't know enough to know who the best choice will be. Sometimes then, I'll vote according to party (which currently means I'd vote Democrat, because the Republicans are really pissing me off, especially those at the national level, but that could conceivably change). Or, if I know nothing, I might just leave that section blank.

[etv78]

I'll vote for Dems for the House/state reps. But I'm voting for the Independent for governor. (I'm in MA) reasons: the Republican is a Health Industry exec. (I NEVER vote for non-legal industry candidates), Democratic incumbet been below average.

[Doug Bowe]

Never voted a straight ticket. I don't think any party has a corner on the truth.

I try to vote for the person who will embarass my district the least.

[carnivorousplant]

Never voted a straight ticket. I don't think any party has a corner on the truth.



I think one of them certainly has a corner on screwing the Little Guy, though. :)

[Doug Bowe]

I think one of them certainly has a corner on screwing the Little Guy, though. :)

On the national level, okay, there appears to be a record.

On the local level things get a little strange. The OP asks how do we choose to cast a vote for someone. Here is the wildest way I once picked a candidate:

I was reading the paper one afternoon and saw that my district actually had a runoff election going on. Since I make it a point to vote in everything possible I ran to the polling place to see...one single poster on the chain link fence and nobody outside with signs. Went inside to discover that it was 3:30 in the afternoon and I was voter #8.
There were two choices for trustee at the community college. That was it!
And I didn't know either of them. After thinking about it a couple of seconds I voted for the name on that one sign outside on the fence.
The reason?
Well, that person cared enough to print a sign and hang it up.

[Chronos]

So, did your guy win?

[Doug Bowe]

So, did your guy win?


Shame on me. I forgot his name as I drove away from the polling place.

[gonzomax]

I never thought the "best man" concept made sense. The Dems are more likely to help the small people. The Repubs work for the rich. The Dems are less likely to start wars and bury tons of money on "Defense". The small people are hurting after 8 years of the Repubs. The wealthy are rolling in dough. Obama had less than 2 years to fix the Bush mess. It will take longer than that, and now , if the Repubs gain, the average man will suffer for a long time.
The Dems have been watered down by campaign financing. They are kissing the same butts the Repubs are to get money. The campaign financing mess must be fixed if the people will have any chance to get their government back.
There is no party that deals what is wrong in America. we fight over symptoms and never deal with the illness.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I sit down with my pre-ballot that I get in the mail, and go over every race carefully, making a list of what I know about each candidate in each race, both pro and con. Then I go online and fact check myself, to be sure I actually know what's what. Then I vote for whichever candidate wins the Google Fight (http://www.googlefight.com/).

[Chefguy]

I ask myself: "who would my brother-in-law vote for?" Then do the opposite.

[carnivorousplant]

The Dems are more likely to help the small people. The Repubs work for the rich. The Dems are less likely to start wars and bury tons of money on "Defense". The small people are hurting after 8 years of the Repubs. The wealthy are rolling in dough. Obama had less than 2 years to fix the Bush mess. It will take longer than that, and now , if the Repubs gain, the average man will suffer for a long time.

Amen, Brother!

The Dems have been watered down by campaign financing. They are kissing the same butts the Repubs are to get money.

Can you give me an example?
Thanks!

[suranyi]

I'm more interested in learning who to vote for in local non-partisan races, of which we always have lots. This time, for example, we are voting for city councilors, a county supervisor, a member of the water board, and some others as well. School board officials too, I think. All are non-partisan. I have very little idea how to vote; these races are barely covered in the media.

[gonzomax]

Amen, Brother!


Can you give me an example?
Thanks!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742 Corporations hedge their bets. They contribute to both parties , so whoever wins, they will have their hooks into them.
The election system has to be remade. This election will have 4 billion dollars spent on campaign ads. That is corrosive.

[It's Not Rocket Surgery!]

For our local races, I read the handouts looking for the subtext, or perhaps a reason to vote for or against a candidate that was unintended by the candidate.

For example, a local candidate for judge carpet-bombed our area with pamphlets extolling his "family values", and showing a picture of him with his TEN children. Sorry, pal, one of MY favorite values is self-restraint. I'm not voting for any Duggar wannabes.

[Chronos]

If I got handouts or pamphlets for the local races, I'd probably look for subtext in them, too. But I don't think I ever have.

[Merijeek]

For our local races, I read the handouts looking for the subtext, or perhaps a reason to vote for or against a candidate that was unintended by the candidate.

For example, a local candidate for judge carpet-bombed our area with pamphlets extolling his "family values", and showing a picture of him with his TEN children. Sorry, pal, one of MY favorite values is self-restraint. I'm not voting for any Duggar wannabes.

Around here the "subtext" is usually "I'm white, I got white kids, I go do [specific name of church], and I love hunting." And if you can explain how that makes for better comptroller I'd love to hear it.

-Joe

[gwendee]

I have attended some "meet the candidates" forums and town hall style meetings, too. I watched the televised debate between our gubenatorial candindates.

In every county I've lived in the Laegue of Women Voters produces a fairly comprehensive Voters' Guide. They ask all the candidates for each office a list of questions, publish that list and each candidate's answers.

They also summarize the ballot questions which I find helpful because sometimes the language of the questions is convoluted. The guide gives the whole question "Shall the budget for the county library not be increased by $59,000 to a total of $512,000?" Without the guide I might read the question too quickly and think "library? I like the library!" and vote yes, when a yes vote actually means no money for the library. they spell it out very clearly. "A yes vote means the library budget increase is defeated."

The nature and tone of mailings and ads can affect my final choices. Out of a slate of 8 candidates we are to choose 3 state legislators. I had already firmly decided to vote for 2 incumbents and was weighing my decision regarding the third. I had the choice narrowed down to two. Over the weekend we got a mailing that was absolutely hateful and, I suspect not entirely true, about one of my potential choices. "She eats broiled kittens and hosts ice cream socials for pedophiles!" (Paid for by the committee to elect Another Guy) Another Guy didn't, as near as we can tell, send any literature with reasons to vote FOR him. If your mailing includes attacks on your opponent you are going to have to work hard to show me your good qualities.

If someone's running for re-election I look at as much of his or her voting record as I can find out. There are a few legislative issues about which I feel strongly enough to have written to my representatives. How they've responded influences my decision whether to vote to keep them in office or not, too.

[jayjay]

Generally, right now? I vote for the Democrat. If the Republican Party ever regains its sanity, I'll start looking at actual positions of actual candidates. But as long as they're on the kick they've been on since the early 90s, they're not even an option to me.

[BigT]

BigT, where is "Hickville"?

Northern part of Arkansas--in the Ozarks. We call ourselves hicks or hillbillies.

I don't want to get more specific than that. It's small town country, so it doesn't take a lot to figure out where someone lives knowing their approximate location.

[DianaG]

Generally, right now? I vote for the Democrat. If the Republican Party ever regains its sanity, I'll start looking at actual positions of actual candidates. But as long as they're on the kick they've been on since the early 90s, they're not even an option to me.
Yeah, this year, the Dems would have to put forth a literal drooling vegetable for me to consider even leaving that spot blank.

[jayjay]

Yeah, this year, the Dems would have to put forth a literal drooling vegetable for me to consider even leaving that spot blank.

Case in point, Alvin Greene.

[gonzomax]

Most ,but not all the Repub crazies lost. That is hopeful. O'Donnell, Angle, Paladino and a couple other baggers lost. They were even too far out for the Repubs.
I wonder how well they can control Paul?
The Dems did not support Greene. They don't waste time and money on loons.

[Boyo Jim]

...
I wonder how well they can control Paul?
...

He'll sell out to the mainstream Republicans within 10 seconds of taking office. He probably already has. The Libertarian Party has already disowned him.

[JoelUpchurch]

Amen, Brother!


Can you give me an example?
Thanks!

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Take a look at the top contributors to Obama. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley. Does that look like a bunch of people looking out for the little guy?

[JoelUpchurch]

It's like driving a car: D to go forward, R for reverse. I vote straight Democratic for the offices that matter, for the local yokels I'll read their bios and stands on impartial web sites, if I can find them.

Actually R sounds like the smart option when the Ds are trying to drive off a cliff. The problem is that some people tend confuse motion with progress. I'm ready for a little gridlock myself.

[DianaG]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

Take a look at the top contributors to Obama. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley. Does that look like a bunch of people looking out for the little guy?
Um... (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424) those are pretty much the top contributors to every presidential campaign since before anyone here was born. Did you have some point you were attempting to make?

Although hey, I don't know when you were born. Judging by the comment above, you may well be one of those little old people who can't tell the brake from the gas, and feels like they're flying at 13mph.

[JoelUpchurch]

Um... (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424) those are pretty much the top contributors to every presidential campaign since before anyone here was born. Did you have some point you were attempting to make?

Sorry, the context got stripped off. The original message was:

Originally Posted by gonzomax View Post
The Dems have been watered down by campaign financing. They are kissing the same butts the Repubs are to get money.

When carnivorousplant asked for an example, I cited that. It isn't obvious that we disagree about this based on what you said.


Although hey, I don't know when you were born. Judging by the comment above, you may well be one of those little old people who can't tell the brake from the gas, and feels like they're flying at 13mph.

You've got me there. Oh, to be young and ignorant like you again. :)

[DianaG]

Well, I'm not young, but I still have all my faculties. I have not, for instance, completely forgotten the past decade.

[Box A Rox]

I live in a Republican Swamp... a rural county where the Republicans outnumber the Democrats 2 to 1. Often there are NO Democrats running for office in any local races.
In essence on many races I have no vote. There are several candidates running in the Republican or Conservative primaries, that then run unopposed in the general election.

Although I generally side with the Democrats, I have voted for Republicans either because the Republican was a good choice, or because the Democrat running was such a terrible choice.

[carnivorousplant]

You've got me there. Oh, to be young and ignorant like you again. :)

Touche'


:)

[JoelUpchurch]

Well, I'm not young, but I still have all my faculties. I have not, for instance, completely forgotten the past decade.

Can you remember all the way back to 2003 when the Bush administration tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie and the Democrats in congress like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said the regulations weren't necessary and the Bush administration was trying to keep poor people from getting affordable housing?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[RTFirefly]

I freely admit that I almost always vote a straight party ticket. But I don't think that's as lazy and uninformed as it may sound. For starters, I have a pretty good idea of what my party stands for -- its guiding principles and core values. An individual who chooses to run under that banner is likely to share many of those values, or at least a lot more likely than the opponent. Exactly.

I vote straight Democratic. Among elected officials, interparty variance in positions on political issues has pretty much swamped intraparty variance. The likelihood of a Dem candidate for anything from state legislature on up being less compatible with my values than a Republican candidate for that office is essentially nil.

I'm old enough to remember Rockefeller Republicans and segregationist Democrats. There was a time when it made sense to vote the person, rather than the party. That time is long gone. If you buy into what Republicans are generally selling, you should vote a straight GOP ticket. If you buy into what the Dems are pushing, you should vote a straight Dem ticket. End of story.

[Blaster Master]

I always look up the ballot ahead of time and research each candidate and review their platform and I will generally choose the one that I agree with most. This seems to more often than not result in me voting third party.

The only time I won't vote for the one I agree with most is if I feel we're not enough in agreement, as in, if I only agree with roughly 60% of what that person says, or they have a particular opinion on something I very strongly disagree with, I will instead conscientiously object by voting a write-in. I know that isn't meaningfully different from not voting, but for me, it's the principle of the matter.

And, honestly, to anyone who will only vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning, IOW either the Democrat or Republican in 99% of cases, even if there is potentially someone out there you agree with more, you're everything that's wrong with the system. I have no problem if someone votes Republican or Democrat if they honestly believe they're the best candidate, but I know a huge number of people who admit they like a third party candidate better but are afraid of the other major party candidate winning more. If only everyone stuck to their convictions...

[DianaG]

Can you remember all the way back to 2003 when the Bush administration tried to rein in Freddie and Fannie and the Democrats in congress like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said the regulations weren't necessary and the Bush administration was trying to keep poor people from getting affordable housing?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
I do. I remember the ENTIRE decade, as I previously stated. Cherry picking doesn't impress me. After all, I could just as easily blame the administration for not noticing AIG, which is the organization that truly started flinging shit at the fan.

[Chronos]

And, honestly, to anyone who will only vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning, IOW either the Democrat or Republican in 99% of cases, even if there is potentially someone out there you agree with more, you're everything that's wrong with the system. I have no problem if someone votes Republican or Democrat if they honestly believe they're the best candidate, but I know a huge number of people who admit they like a third party candidate better but are afraid of the other major party candidate winning more. If only everyone stuck to their convictions... If everyone followed your example, then we'd get a 200-million-way tie between write-in candidates. Now, what would be really nice would be a voting system which made better use of the information provided by the voters, so that it'd be possible for a voter to vote third party without throwing his vote away, and many of us do, in fact, agitate for such a system, but it's very tough to get it into place (since the people currently in power got in power using the current system).

[carnivorousplant]

Now, what would be really nice would be a voting system which made better use of the information provided by the voters, so that it'd be possible for a voter to vote third party without throwing his vote away

How would that work?

[JoelUpchurch]

I do. I remember the ENTIRE decade, as I previously stated. Cherry picking doesn't impress me. After all, I could just as easily blame the administration for not noticing AIG, which is the organization that truly started flinging shit at the fan.

We are discussing how our elected officials behave. You are trying to change the subject by bringing up AIG. AIG were greedy morons for insuring risks they didn't understand, but we are discussing the behavior of elected officials. They are the ones that created the shit in the first place.

[JoelUpchurch]

If everyone followed your example, then we'd get a 200-million-way tie between write-in candidates. Now, what would be really nice would be a voting system which made better use of the information provided by the voters, so that it'd be possible for a voter to vote third party without throwing his vote away, and many of us do, in fact, agitate for such a system, but it's very tough to get it into place (since the people currently in power got in power using the current system).

I would like to have a system, where I could vote against a candidate instead of for one. An antivote would subtract one from the total and would benefit all the candidates running against him. A third party candidate could win by being less offensive than his opponents. If all candidates had negative vote totals, then the candidate with the lowest negative number would win and I suspect we wouldn't hear much 'mandate' talk.

[DianaG]

We are discussing how our elected officials behave. You are trying to change the subject by bringing up AIG. AIG were greedy morons for insuring risks they didn't understand, but we are discussing the behavior of elected officials. They are the ones that created the shit in the first place.
I'm not changing the subject, you're cherry picking. The elected officials in question went after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ignored AIG and any number of other publicly held firms that were engaging in far more egregious financial fuckery. They created the shit because they were allowed to.

[JoelUpchurch]

I'm not changing the subject, you're cherry picking. The elected officials in question went after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ignored AIG and any number of other publicly held firms that were engaging in far more egregious financial fuckery. They created the shit because they were allowed to.

So in 2003, instead of regulating Fannie and Freddie they should have been investigating AIG for things they didn't do until 2005?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-cdos-that-destroyed-a_b_499875.html