• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Voting for the Wrong Reasons

iacardsfan

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Last night during the Caucus coverage I heard something very interesting and very disturbing. This has nothing to trying to hate on any candidate or sell any candidate, but this is simply not good. The CNN Hosts were talking about how many people are changing votes because they want to vote for the candidate the has the best chance of winning and more specifically getting Obama out of office. That is totally the wrong reason to vote, the reason to vote is to vote for the candidate that YOU think will best lead the country. A lot of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum supporters ended up voting Romney because of his elect-ability and likely-hood of winning against Obama. There are two things bugging me about this: first, Obama was not THAT awful, he might not have even come in the ballpark of what he promised to do on his campaign, but do they ever? I do not see any formidable reason why voters should not vote for who they actually want to win because of how Obama has performed. Whoever wins the GOP Bid will give Obama a run for his money, even if it is not Romney. The Second thing is, voting for the wrong reasons is why we are in this position. I know for a fact last election a lot of Democrats voted Obama instead of Hilary because they found him more "electable", and for you Republicans switching your votes because of elect-ability, you could find another Obama situation because a candidate might win that is in fact not best suited for the job (not saying that was the case for Obama).

This is a plea, a plea for all of you voters to vote for who you think will be the best President, not who will have the best chance at getting Obama out of office, or you might find yourself in a situation where yet again you are not pleased with your President.
 
Not sure about about not being all that bad but I agree with most of everything else you are saying.Which is why I refused to vote for McCain in the last election and why I will refuse to vote for Romney in this upcoming election. I refuse to vote for a liberal.I could care less if that liberal is a democrat or republican because that liberal is still going to appoint liberal judges or so-called moderates to the S.C. will try to push for Amnesty, will try to **** on 2nd amendment rights and many other things that I oppose.
 
There is no wrong reason to vote, nor wrong reasons to vote as you choose. Each person decides what is important to them, and votes based on that. Who the hell are you or I to tell them that this is "wrong"?
 
iacardsfan said:
The CNN Hosts were talking about how many people are changing votes because they want to vote for the candidate the has the best chance of winning and more specifically getting Obama out of office.
Click to expand...

There's no polling evidence to support such a claim. That's complete speculation. Romney won the largest share of vote among those who considered "electability" the most important factor in their choice. However, no questions asked whether voters shifted to any candidate on account of that factor.

That is totally the wrong reason to vote...
Click to expand...

As with any decision, people have many motives that lead them to make a choice. Human behavior and decision making is a complex endeavor.
 
Redress said:
There is no wrong reason to vote, nor wrong reasons to vote as you choose. Each person decides what is important to them, and votes based on that. Who the hell are you or I to tell them that this is "wrong"?
Click to expand...

A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.
Click to expand...
The definition of voting. There are other ways of expressing opinions about candidates then voting for somebody you do not truly want to back.
 
Redress said:
There is no wrong reason to vote, nor wrong reasons to vote as you choose. Each person decides what is important to them, and votes based on that. Who the hell are you or I to tell them that this is "wrong"?
Click to expand...

I disagree with that.If you do not know squat about politics or the candidates you are voting for then that would be wrong of you to vote. If you were bribed to vote for a candidate then that would be a pretty wrong reason to vote. If you are voting for a politician you know is going to screw you over even though you were shown evidence that candidate can not in any shape or form be trusted then that is a pretty stupid to vote for that candidate.
 
iacardsfan said:
There are other ways of expressing opinions about candidates then voting for somebody you do not truly want to back.
Click to expand...

That's too simplistic. Let's say I'm a voter who truly believes President Obama is a terrible President and my highest priority as a voter is to see him replaced. Then, it would make rational sense for me to make the trade-offs necessary to maximize prospects for that outcome through my vote. Hence, I might vote in favor of the candidate who has the best chance to defeat him, even if it means abandoning one who holds more similar ideological positions to mine, but has little meaningful prospect of defeating the President. In this hypothetical example, my interest in defeating the President would take precedence over my interest in a candidate's ideology.

In the end, my political interest would be served from my vote. I would have prioritized and then made the necessary trade-off. There would be nothing irrational or unethical about the choice.
 
jamesrage said:
I disagree with that.If you do not know squat about politics or the candidates you are voting for then that would be wrong of you to vote. If you were bribed to vote for a candidate then that would be a pretty wrong reason to vote. If you are voting for a politician you know is going to screw you over even though you were shown evidence that candidate can not in any shape or form be trusted then that is a pretty stupid to vote for that candidate.
Click to expand...

And I disagree with that. If some one wants to vote for the candidate with the cutest butt, that is their right. I might think it is a silly reason, but I am not going to say it is for the wrong reasons. It's not for you or me to judge.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That's too simplistic. Let's say I'm a voter who truly believes President Obama is a terrible President and my highest priority as a voter is to see him replaced. Then, it would make rational sense for me to make the trade-offs necessary to maximize prospects for that outcome through my vote. Hence, I might vote in favor of the candidate who has the best chance to defeat him, even if it means abandoning one who holds more similar ideological positions to mine, but has little meaningful prospect of defeating the President. In this hypothetical example, my interest in defeating the President would take precedence over my interest in a candidate's ideology.

In the end, my political interest would be served from my vote. I would have prioritized and then made the necessary trade-off. There would be nothing irrational or unethical about the choice.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'll make the trades in order to keep someone out of office who I view as completely, ideologically unacceptable, even if I don't agree 100% with the other candidate, as your hypothetical demonstrates. This is why I don't understand if someone is adamantly opposed to President Obama, why they would stay home rather than vote for say, Romney. Romney isn't running on keeping healthcare reform or any of the president's other accomplishments.

Further, conversely, the more liberal and left voters who are angry with Obama puzzle me with their huffing and puffing about staying home over broken promises. I would think they would object more strongly to a Republican in the White House, than Obama's second term. *shrugs.
 
Our two party system often necessitates voting against someone. In fact, given the stark difference in a lot of social stances and at least superficial differences in economic stances, the parties have basically set themselves up as completely intolerable to the other side. It's very difficult to like both candidates, especially when they're spewing such vitriol at one another.

But as to the OP's point, no vote is truly wasted, and voting for whoever best represents your interests is the right move. It's a shame that there are such petty and nasty interests, but that's a whole different discussion.
 
iacardsfan said:
Last night during the Caucus coverage I heard something very interesting and very disturbing. This has nothing to trying to hate on any candidate or sell any candidate, but this is simply not good. The CNN Hosts were talking about how many people are changing votes because they want to vote for the candidate the has the best chance of winning and more specifically getting Obama out of office. That is totally the wrong reason to vote, the reason to vote is to vote for the candidate that YOU think will best lead the country. A lot of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum supporters ended up voting Romney because of his elect-ability and likely-hood of winning against Obama. There are two things bugging me about this: first, Obama was not THAT awful, he might not have even come in the ballpark of what he promised to do on his campaign, but do they ever? I do not see any formidable reason why voters should not vote for who they actually want to win because of how Obama has performed. Whoever wins the GOP Bid will give Obama a run for his money, even if it is not Romney. The Second thing is, voting for the wrong reasons is why we are in this position. I know for a fact last election a lot of Democrats voted Obama instead of Hilary because they found him more "electable", and for you Republicans switching your votes because of elect-ability, you could find another Obama situation because a candidate might win that is in fact not best suited for the job (not saying that was the case for Obama).

This is a plea, a plea for all of you voters to vote for who you think will be the best President, not who will have the best chance at getting Obama out of office, or you might find yourself in a situation where yet again you are not pleased with your President.
Click to expand...

If you were running this country you might be able to convince people to vote in the manner in which you wish everyone would vote, but fortunately you are not. I would vote for The Zodiak Killer before Obama. He is an abomination and a disgrace to the office and you will never change my mind!
 
I disagree with the OP. There's a fella across the street that would make a better president than Obama or any of the Republicans. I could legally write-in his name and he would have 1 vote. The OP would seem to suggest that I should.

The ultimate measure of politics is victory or failure. To the contrary of the dogmatic reasons given for voting by the OP, I favor pragmatic decisions in politics. However, I also do not believe Romney is Republican's best chance against Obama.

The only candidate that could be tolerable to all factions of Republicans is Perry. He is establishment. The religious-right and Tea Party would find him acceptable. So would economic and foreign policy Republicans. It is unlikely, but he is the only candidate that there wouldn't be a major faction of Republicans that truly despised him as would be with either Romney or Santorum.

I exclude most Paul supporters because they could accept no one but Paul.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I disagree with the OP. There's a fella across the street that would make a better president than Obama or any of the Republicans. I could legally write-in his name and he would have 1 vote. The OP would seem to suggest that I should.

The ultimate measure of politics is victory or failure. To the contrary of the dogmatic reasons given for voting by the OP, I favor pragmatic decisions in politics. However, I also do not believe Romney is Republican's best chance against Obama.

The only candidate that could be tolerable to all factions of Republicans is Perry. He is establishment. The religious-right and Tea Party would find him acceptable. So would economic and foreign policy Republicans. It is unlikely, but he is the only candidate that there wouldn't be a major faction of Republicans that truly despised him as would be with either Romney or Santorum.

I exclude most Paul supporters because they could accept no one but Paul.
Click to expand...

Some candidates shoot themselves in the foot, Perry has blown off both his feet. He simply does not appear to be capable of taking the pressure. Running Texas, or a Redneck factory, is way different than running the country.
 
Sometimes elections boil down to voting against one candidate vs voting "for" another. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom