Voting Dilemma and Civics Lesson
Moderator: Super Moderators
-
- Pirate
- Posts: 264
- Joined: 05-19-2000 02:00 AM
Your Voting Dilemna and Civics Lesson
Let us assume there are 3 candidates on your ballot in November. There will be more, but for the sake of this exercise, 3 works fine.
Candidate A is a major party candidate that you agree with 75 to 80% of the time. He or she has had to make some disappointing compromises that distress you. At one time, you may have been 90% in agreement with this candidate.
Candidate B is another major party candidate who's views you mostly oppose. Some are quite frightening to you, and you will only agree with this candidate 15 to 20% of the time.
Candidate C is your ideal candidate, but running as an independent or minor party candidate. This candidate would be your pick if you were granted the authority to simply appoint the next president. You are something like 95 to 98% in agreement with this candidate's positions, but unfortunately, he or she is drawing less than 5% support in the polls.
When you go to the polls, will you vote pragmatically, or will you stick to your principles? Will you choose candidate A, B, or C?
Candidate A is a major party candidate that you agree with 75 to 80% of the time. He or she has had to make some disappointing compromises that distress you. At one time, you may have been 90% in agreement with this candidate.
Candidate B is another major party candidate who's views you mostly oppose. Some are quite frightening to you, and you will only agree with this candidate 15 to 20% of the time.
Candidate C is your ideal candidate, but running as an independent or minor party candidate. This candidate would be your pick if you were granted the authority to simply appoint the next president. You are something like 95 to 98% in agreement with this candidate's positions, but unfortunately, he or she is drawing less than 5% support in the polls.
When you go to the polls, will you vote pragmatically, or will you stick to your principles? Will you choose candidate A, B, or C?
After all these years of voting, I've learned to vote for the candidate of my party--whether I agree with him or her 100% or 80% or even 20%. There's pollitical clout in numbers.
I no longer vote for a candidate who doesn't stand a chance of being a true contender. Not saying I wouldn't vote Independent, I would, if the candidate idealistically met my needs AND had a snowball's chance in HEdoublehockeysticks of winning. Otherwise, might as well not even vote at all.
Oh. To answer your multiple choice, for me, I would vote for A.
I no longer vote for a candidate who doesn't stand a chance of being a true contender. Not saying I wouldn't vote Independent, I would, if the candidate idealistically met my needs AND had a snowball's chance in HEdoublehockeysticks of winning. Otherwise, might as well not even vote at all.
Oh. To answer your multiple choice, for me, I would vote for A.
-
- Pirate
- Posts: 264
- Joined: 05-19-2000 02:00 AM
Thank you for teaching me a new word. Prior to this, I'd never heard of HEdoublehockeysticks!
Last edited by Conspiracy Theorist on 07-23-2008 05:51 PM, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Pirate
- Posts: 45448
- Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM
For me, candidate C does not exist - heck, I don't know if I am comfortable with my own opinions 95% of the time.
But, to answer your hypothetical question one has to acknowledge two different sets of circumstances in an election. A tight race - or - a blowout either way in your state.
If the race looked as if it would be a blowout, I would vote for the unlikely candidate C. However, were the outcome in question, I would without hesitation vote for candidate A.
Prior to 2000 and Ralph Nader I might have felt differently about candidate C regardless of the circumstances - but I've seen the price we've all paid with candidate B in office these past 8 years.
But, to answer your hypothetical question one has to acknowledge two different sets of circumstances in an election. A tight race - or - a blowout either way in your state.
If the race looked as if it would be a blowout, I would vote for the unlikely candidate C. However, were the outcome in question, I would without hesitation vote for candidate A.
Prior to 2000 and Ralph Nader I might have felt differently about candidate C regardless of the circumstances - but I've seen the price we've all paid with candidate B in office these past 8 years.
"You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin
-
- Pirate
- Posts: 264
- Joined: 05-19-2000 02:00 AM
-
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
This is a really interesting exercise, and I think Kaz is right in that it might well make a difference in one’s choice, depending on who was favored to win the election. It might also make a difference if the election were for an executive (president, governor, mayor) as opposed to a legislative office.
In general, I would go with A, although I have gone with C in the past, knowing they would lose but that I could look myself in the mirror in the morning and feel relatively honest. On the other hand, sometimes it’s more complicated than in this example. For instance, in this election year, the candidate one felt most comfortable with might have dropped out early in the process. And even that candidate, if one were being quite honest with oneself, might not have made a good office-holder.
It’s also important to consider factors other than the “issues,” such as one’s assessment of the person’s character. Very often the “issues” being bandied about are hot-button items that won’t really figure into the matter of governing during the candidate’s term of office. And today’s issues may fade into the distance when tomorrow’s rear their heads. One has to choose the person who one thinks will best face, and make decisions upon, issues that are not even on anyone’s horizon right now. That’s not an easy call.
In general, I would go with A, although I have gone with C in the past, knowing they would lose but that I could look myself in the mirror in the morning and feel relatively honest. On the other hand, sometimes it’s more complicated than in this example. For instance, in this election year, the candidate one felt most comfortable with might have dropped out early in the process. And even that candidate, if one were being quite honest with oneself, might not have made a good office-holder.
It’s also important to consider factors other than the “issues,” such as one’s assessment of the person’s character. Very often the “issues” being bandied about are hot-button items that won’t really figure into the matter of governing during the candidate’s term of office. And today’s issues may fade into the distance when tomorrow’s rear their heads. One has to choose the person who one thinks will best face, and make decisions upon, issues that are not even on anyone’s horizon right now. That’s not an easy call.
Anchors Aweigh
I vote philosophy. I strongly agree with the platform of my party. That platform is what will be enacted into law and enforced. The particular candidate would have to be pretty bad before I would vote for the other parties. So, for instance, I would never vote for Lieberman, even if he returned to the Democratic fold completely.
So, I would vote for A.
So, I would vote for A.
Anchors Aweigh!