- 04 Nov 2016 09:05
#14732540
In elections do you have a "rule of thumb" you follow for voting. I have four main "categories" of issues thus I allow up to four choices. The four categories are practicality (the extent to which your vote is strategic vs. idealistic), partisanship, relevance of single issue or few issue politics and finally voting as a duty vs. not voting. I allow up to four choices with the intention that people will pick from each category.
For me my answers are.
Usually the above with exceptions.
I generally vote for the best candidate who can win. I prefer to say the lesser of two goods in the sense that I will vote for an electable candidate I agree with most of the time versus my dream candidate who is unelectable. There does come a point where all candidates are so mediocre or bad it doesn't matter.
I usually vote for candidates of a particular political party but with exceptions.
I do usually vote for one party however I am not absolutely committed to it. I generally almost always vote one way for legislative offices however I make exception for executive offices since I think these are more management based and based on the personality of who is running.
I understand these are the offices people get most emotional about however in practicality they are the least important ideologically. It is sort of the "grand prize" of politics so thats why people get angry about it. In presidential races I "weight" foreign policy much, much higher than other issues.
I have one or a few issues that are priorities but there are exceptions where I will put these aside.
I do have a handful of issues that are dealbreakers however I would set them aside for the ultimate issue of foreign policy crisis or some existential danger.
Other.
I don't view voting as a the apotheosis of democracy as some do, I think informing people and having debates outside election cycles is much more important. I think if you spread the ideas around people will vote for better candidates in the future. However I think people should vote in most cases.
For me my answers are.
Usually the above with exceptions.
I generally vote for the best candidate who can win. I prefer to say the lesser of two goods in the sense that I will vote for an electable candidate I agree with most of the time versus my dream candidate who is unelectable. There does come a point where all candidates are so mediocre or bad it doesn't matter.
I usually vote for candidates of a particular political party but with exceptions.
I do usually vote for one party however I am not absolutely committed to it. I generally almost always vote one way for legislative offices however I make exception for executive offices since I think these are more management based and based on the personality of who is running.
I understand these are the offices people get most emotional about however in practicality they are the least important ideologically. It is sort of the "grand prize" of politics so thats why people get angry about it. In presidential races I "weight" foreign policy much, much higher than other issues.
I have one or a few issues that are priorities but there are exceptions where I will put these aside.
I do have a handful of issues that are dealbreakers however I would set them aside for the ultimate issue of foreign policy crisis or some existential danger.
Other.
I don't view voting as a the apotheosis of democracy as some do, I think informing people and having debates outside election cycles is much more important. I think if you spread the ideas around people will vote for better candidates in the future. However I think people should vote in most cases.
- By Skynet
- By Tainari88
- By litwin