NCclimber 0 #1 November 7, 2007 In a situation where you have a candidate, who you genuinely support, but who doesn't stand a chance of winning and you have a front runner you're luke warm about, but clearly prefer over the opposition, how would you vote? Do you stay true to values and vote for the straggler, knowing your vote is basically a throw away? Or do you use your vote to help elect the lesser of two bad choices and leave your golden boy in the dirt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #2 November 7, 2007 QuoteIn a situation where you have a candidate, who you genuinely support, but who doesn't stand a chance of winning and you have a front runner you're luke warm about, but clearly prefer over the opposition, how would you vote? Do you stay true to values and vote for the straggler, knowing your vote is basically a throw away? Or do you use your vote to help elect the lesser of two bad choices and leave your golden boy in the dirt? Both. Recently I've been voting against the large weevil. Sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 November 7, 2007 this is for a primary, right? (main election is usually only the two choices) The choice is usually made easy for me in California in that there is a runaway victory, so my single vote is even less relevent than 1 in 30M normally would, so I see no reason not to vote for the person I prefer. In the bigger picture, I think that's better anyway. People who voted for Nader contributed to the Bush victory, but they reminded the Democrats that they're taking a significant portion of their voters for granted. At the primary level, each party can use similar reminders that they're supposed to represent, not just win at any costs. If we all vote for the front runner to ensure victory, we tend to encourage less choice over time. Of course, if you're faced with the spectre of Hillary or say Jeb Bush, you might decide that this particular election is not one for principles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #4 November 7, 2007 QuoteIn a situation where you have a candidate, who you genuinely support, but who doesn't stand a chance of winning and you have a front runner you're luke warm about, but clearly prefer over the opposition, how would you vote? Do you stay true to values and vote for the straggler, knowing your vote is basically a throw away? Or do you use your vote to help elect the lesser of two bad choices and leave your golden boy in the dirt? I used to vote for who I believed in. Then I was convinced that I was wrong about certain politicians being no worse than their opposition, just different and tried tactical voting. The "less bad" guys I voted for rolled over and made no difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #5 November 7, 2007 It depends. Generally I'll vote my preferred candidate, even though it may be a throwaway. However, in a particularly tight race with one candidate substantially less abhorrent than another, I'll use my vote to try to minimize the damage. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #6 November 7, 2007 I vote absentee. Never voted any other way. Although I do get jealous the in-persons get a sticker. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #7 November 7, 2007 3rd alternative: Appoint SpeedRacer as SUPREME DICTATOR and then no one has to worry about voting. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 November 7, 2007 QuoteDo you stay true to values and vote for the straggler, knowing your vote is basically a throw away? Or do you use your vote to help elect the lesser of two bad choices and leave your golden boy in the dirt? I tend to vote pragmatically, so that my vote has a tangible effect, and not just to make a statement. That means I vote for the most tolerable (least intolerable?) choice that has a chance of winning, especially if doing so helps defeat a candidate that I particularly dislike - or who will effectively be controlled by a team that I particularly dislike. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,362 #9 November 7, 2007 Quote 3rd alternative: Appoint SpeedRacer as SUPREME DICTATOR and then no one has to worry about voting. That is the same crap we've been hearing out of the whitehouse for the last 6.5 years."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #10 November 8, 2007 It's different for me in the case of primary vs. general election as I live in Massachusetts. Since I am currently registered Republican, my primary vote will go to the candidate that best matches me on the issues, whether they are the front runner or not. In Mass. the electoral votes are going to go to a Democrat whether I vote for a Republican or not. My number 1 issue is Pro-Life. I don't think I'm going to get that choice this time around. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #11 November 8, 2007 I'm thinking that a write in campaign might be in order. I'm tired of voting against a candidate. I'd be happy to vote FOR this guyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arWJ358tZgU Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #12 November 8, 2007 Quotethis is for a primary, right? (main election is usually only the two choices) Actually, I was thinking of the '04 general election when I started this thread. QuoteIn the bigger picture, I think that's better anyway. People who voted for Nader contributed to the Bush victory, but they reminded the Democrats that they're taking a significant portion of their voters for granted. So, was it worth having Bush for another four years to make a statement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 November 8, 2007 I pick some random guy I don't really know, based on minor soundclips and what I read on this site - coupled with mainly Saturday Night Live and Late Show humor mocking the candidates. oh, and maybe about 15 minutes from a couple debates for good measure then, I decide who REALLY pisses off people that I'm ideologically opposed to (that do their homework) and that weighs in more heavily than anything Then I bitch about whoever gets in, even if I voted for them, futilely, for the next 4 years. While business as usual occurs regardless of whoever makes it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 November 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteIn the bigger picture, I think that's better anyway. People who voted for Nader contributed to the Bush victory, but they reminded the Democrats that they're taking a significant portion of their voters for granted. So, was it worth having Bush for another four years to make a statement? Well, to the Naderites, Bush and Gore were basically the same person, so the answer might be yes. (In the '04 election, I don't think Nader was a deciding factor in the results) As I said, you pick and choose your battles. But I don't think anyone that dislikes the Bush Administration would have predicted how the terms went. I expected him to control spending better than Gore would. I knew he would cut taxes (which after the Clinton hikes and the resulting surplus seemed appropriate), which could lead to deficit spending again, but taxes are much easier to alter than bureaucracies. So in hindsight, I imagine the Nader voters might have opted to vote for Gore. But after 8 years of Clinton-Gore, they probably figured their issues weren't going to get any more attention in the next term, so they voted for their man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites