How do you decide who to vote for?

[Mrs. Readsalot]

Seriously I am curious as to how you decide who to vote for.

I have a simple method that I have used for years.

I make two lists.

List 1 has 3 issues that are important to me

List 2 has 3 issues I think are most important to the nation, state county etc.

Then I research each candidates stance on those issues

Then based on the research decide who to vote for.

I don't watch or listen to "spin" I am always skeptical of spin and figure that person has an opinion and they want their opinion to become your opinion. I recently talked my dh into not listening to talk radio as it was really stressing him out. I also ignore political commericals as I find most are just critical of their opponents. So with great peace of mind I know who I am voting for.

[JudoMom]

I vote for the one that's most attractive.

 

Okay, so not really. I vote based on the issues that are important to me. I have a few top-of-the-listers, and I listen to what the candidates are going to do. I don't let the news media tell me what to do, but I do enjoy politics, so I do listen to the news media, although if I listen too much I get a stomachache.

[Pammy]

and I can vote in good conscience.

 

 

There are issues that I don't always find my candidate/party in alignment with me, but I weigh those against the most important values to my family. If we have a candidate that isn't pro-life, I don't even consider looking at them. Abortion= murder always.

[Paula in PA]

I vote based on the issues that are personally important as well as ones I think are important to the country and world. I do have several issues I feel very strongly about and I have never voted for anyone whose position is opposite of mine. It's not been a problem before, but this election is definitely causing a conflict within me.

[lovemyboys]

Sorry. What is your cat avatar doing? Is he leaping or lying across something like a porch railing?

 

:001_smile:

[RebeccaC]

I first vote pro-life if there are two or more pro-life candidates as in a primary then I have other issues that help weed between candidates, hsing is next in line after pro-life, then the military, taxes, government size, ect.....

[Michelle T]

There is no one topic that decides my vote. I make a decision based on what I feel will most benefit this country at this particular point in time.

Michelle T

[Parrothead]

I've got a few issues that I think are the most important. The guy or gal that agrees with that I think the solution is on the most of my issues gets my vote.

[Vida Winter]

I vote for the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. Note that usually (but not always) equals Republican and is almost never Democrat, although that has happened once or twice.

 

I am done with voting simply to make a statement - I did that when I was younger and always felt like my vote was a throw-away.

 

Oh, and my definition of conservative is very Libertarian-leaning.

 

~Dana

[Mom to Aly]

I vote for the candidate I agree with most, and I do research specific issues that are most important to me--I will not vote for them if they are not pro-choice, for gay rights, for gun control, equal rights and pay for women and minorities, against school prayer, and many other issues, although those are a few of the main ones. Against the death penalty is a huge one for me, but I know it isn't always that way with all the candidates now. Complete separation of church and state is another must for me, but that, too, is not working as well as it should. I used to vote for the candidate I felt was the best, now I choose between the top two--I can't throw away my vote, not after the 2000 election.

 

But I do feel I need to research everything I can find, really know the candidate. I don't feel it is right to know about just a few issues. You are voting for the man, not just those few issues, and you should know where he stands. I also, in general, go for as liberal as possible, just because that is how I am on most issues.

[kewb]

I vote for the candidate I agree with most, and I do research specific issues that are most important to me--I will not vote for them if they are not pro-choice, for gay rights, for gun control, equal rights and pay for women and minorities, against school prayer, and many other issues, although those are a few of the main ones. Against the death penalty is a huge one for me, but I know it isn't always that way with all the candidates now. Complete separation of church and state is another must for me, but that, too, is not working as well as it should. I used to vote for the candidate I felt was the best, now I choose between the top two--I can't throw away my vote, not after the 2000 election.

 

But I do feel I need to research everything I can find, really know the candidate. I don't feel it is right to know about just a few issues. You are voting for the man, not just those few issues, and you should know where he stands. I also, in general, go for as liberal as possible, just because that is how I am on most issues.

 

This is how I decide as well. Although I have gone 3rd party in local elections when I could not bring myself to vote for either corrupt candidate.

[Greta]

But I do feel I need to research everything I can find, really know the candidate. I don't feel it is right to know about just a few issues. You are voting for the man, not just those few issues, and you should know where he stands. I also, in general, go for as liberal as possible, just because that is how I am on most issues.

 

I, much like you said, tend to vote for the most liberal candidate who has a chance of winning.

 

However, I do vote on "issues" even though I realize what's in vogue right now is to vote on "character". But I honestly feel that the issues tell me a great deal about the candidate's character, at least in as much as it relates to the job they will be performing. So I freely admit that a few key issues decide the vote for me. Now, those issues will vary greatly depending on the office -- the issues that decide my vote for President are pretty different than the ones that decide my vote for Mayor. But whatever the issue, whether local or national, it has, so far throughout my voting years, always led me to the most liberal candidate possible.

[Haiku]

I attempt to vote for the candidate whom I believe most respresents my ideas for what we need to do to get/keep this country moving in the right direction, but in practice I generally vote Democratic by default because 1) I know that the positions held by the Republicans are not in line with what I believe this country needs and 2) I am afraid of being a Republican-ruled country. I hate fear-voting, but the year that I voted for the person I actually thought would be the best president and not for the Democratic candidate, we got Bush.

 

I don't mean to offend people or sound anti-Republican (because I have no problem with Republicans as people, I don't think they are evil or anything, I just don't agree with Republican ideas for government), I'm just trying to be honest.

 

Oh, how I long for a multi-party system. (I used to live in one and, while I am aware that they are not perfect, it does tend to quash a lot of the 'What makes me a Democratic is that I am against the Republicans/What makes me a Republican is that I am against the Democrats" polarization.)

 

Tara

[Plaid Dad]

I eliminate any candidates who take unacceptable positions on non-negotiable moral issues, as defined by my faith. In today's political arena, that usually narrows the field considerably. Then I rank the remaining candidates on their support of the principles of subsidiarity, limited government, restraint in international affairs, fiscal prudence, and a strict reading of the Constitution.

 

In state elections, I look for similar qualities to those I seek in national candidates. I also want to see people who understand that Massachusetts is not just Boston and its suburbs. Since the state tends to lean hard left and there are rarely any candidates I would consider ideal, I look for those who will act as a balance to the general trend.

 

In local elections, I look for people who will work to preserve the things that make this area special to me: a "small is beautiful" ethic with regard to development, agriculture, and local businesses.

[kalanamak]

I follow your method, basically. First, to me, is someone not fool enough to be rash on the international scheme (there are some scary people out there in the world) and who can present him or herself well (dignified, intelligent, diligent, wise) to the world. This means not watching the campaign. I think future behavior is most often predicted by past behavior, and I think that the system we have here means even serious politicians have to get down in the mud and act disgusting to get elected to anything much higher than dogcatcher. :( I'm sorry it is that way, but I just look politely away from the mud-rolling, and look at their record.

 

I also hark back to something Paul Goodman said about pacifistic writing or film that made the audience bay for blood (a perfect example was the documentary Hearts and Minds...I saw it a decade after it was made in a college audience and people were screaming in delight when the fighter plane got shot down). No insult to anyone, but when people say a speech put tears in their eyes or had them cheering, I really wish they'd not vote. I know that is harsh, but I'd rather we kept powerful emotions about something so important in check. One of the deepest sorrows in my life is that human nature turns politics into a sporting event, and I realize it will never change, and that I will always be the oddball in this. It is akin to realizing you have a most profound love for a drunk. Or as Robert Frost wanted on his tombstone: I had a lover's quarrel with the world.