Questions about how you vote

[Jaxb]

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide who to vote for? I base my voting decision on the candidate's character, knowledge of different issues and policies, and stance on a wide variety of issues. I'm not a single-issue voter. There are many things to consider when deciding who to vote for. I'm against abortion, but I would not necessarily vote for someone just because the candidate is against abortion.

If you do not like any of the presidential candidates, would you vote for the candidate who is not as bad as the others? I wouldn't.

Some people think whether a presidential candidate is an adulterer has no bearing on how well he will do his job as President of the United States. Do you agree? Why or why not?

[Raphael]

I first look for the party that I think will do the best job.
I then look at their policies (which will generally line up with what I agree with because if I think they will do the best job means they and I agree on a majority of issues). Are there any I simply cannot accept?

Here we also have the MMP electoral system, so we can do tactical voting (party vote for one party, vote for local MP from a different party etc.) This can mean that the smaller parties get a fair amount of clout.

In our most recent elections, I didn't actually vote for the party that was closest to me viewpoint wise because I wasn't too sure about their leader, and knew nothing about the local MP candidate, and I was pretty sure they would not clear the 5% threshold which is needed to get a seat in parliament if you don't get a local MP elected. (turned out my sketchiness about the leader of that party was proved correct when it imploded after the elections).

So I voted for NZ's National party, because although I do disagree with them on a number of issues, I do think that overall they are currently the better party to be sitting on the Treasury benches. (I know Starlight will disagree with me on that one, but that's the wonderful thing about politics)

[Starlight]

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide who to vote for?

I consider what topics are important to me, and look at what policies the various candidates / parties have on those topics.

If you do not like any of the presidential candidates, would you vote for the candidate who is not as bad as the others? I wouldn't.

I wouldn't. In the US, if I strongly disliked both the main candidates (as I do this year), then I would vote for the 3rd party candidate who best represents my views, and hope the major party learns a lesson from it and fields a better candidate next time.

Some people think whether a presidential candidate is an adulterer has no bearing on how well he will do his job as President of the United States. Do you agree? Why or why not?

I don't think their private life has any relevance. I want policy competence in politicians not a vague 'moral example' from them.

[Raphael]

If you do not like any of the presidential candidates, would you vote for the candidate who is not as bad as the others? I wouldn't.

Depends. If I don't like the one, and really really don't like the other, I would vote for the one I don't like in order to try make sure the other one didn't win.

Some people think whether a presidential candidate is an adulterer has no bearing on how well he will do his job as President of the United States. Do you agree? Why or why not?

I think it does. If a person cannot remain faithful to what I think is the most important promise that he/she can make, why should I trust him/her in other areas?
I also believe it speak to character.

I have very little respect for a person, regardless of gender, who is an adulterer.

[Cow Poke]

Sometimes, it's a matter of voting for the least worst candidate in an attempt to keep the worst one from attaining office.

For this reason, many liberals will vote for Hillary despite her major untrustworthiness factor, and many conservatives will vote for Trump for the same reason.

[seer]

I look at the Supreme Court - who the next president may or may not appoint. Presidents come and go, the court tends to have a much more profound and longer lasting effect on our laws and culture.

[Cow Poke]

I look at the Supreme Court - who the next president may or may not appoint. Presidents come and go, the court tends to have a much more profound and longer lasting effect on our laws and culture.

Ah, last time I mentioned this, Tazzy came unglued (or was it PM - they seem like twins) and began lecturing on what SCOTUS can and cannot do.

But, yeah, we're about 110% sure that Hillary would nominate the most 'progressive' people she could find, and Trump has at least a 33% chance of nominating some strict constructionists. Naturally, a lot depends on the majority in the Senate.

[Sparko]

Whichever side pays me the most.

[HumbleThinker]

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide who to vote for? I base my voting decision on the candidate's character, knowledge of different issues and policies, and stance on a wide variety of issues. I'm not a single-issue voter. There are many things to consider when deciding who to vote for. I'm against abortion, but I would not necessarily vote for someone just because the candidate is against abortion.

If you do not like any of the presidential candidates, would you vote for the candidate who is not as bad as the others? I wouldn't.

Some people think whether a presidential candidate is an adulterer has no bearing on how well he will do his job as President of the United States. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Your thoughts are similar to mine. I try to think who do I think would be the best person for the job as opposed to who is the least bad. In very rough order of significance, I would say I value policies, temperament, and character. I'm also not a single issue voter. No single position (save for extreme positions that will likely never come up in an American democratic election such as killing all suspected drug dealers without a trial like over in the Philippines right now) is going to prevent me from voting for or against a candidate. I think if the president had much less power ala the Jeffersonian concept of a president, the prevalence of single issue voters would decrease. But that is for another thread I suppose.

If I like neither of the main candidates, I would, as I will likely do this election, vote for someone I think a better choice than them. I don't treat my vote as a tactical act but simply an expression of my desire for the face of my country. At the very least, I can't complain that everyone else should do the same if I don't do it myself :p

Having committed an immoral act would not necessarily automatically eliminate a candidate from my consideration. Besides not having all the details and being deeply suspicious of media accounts of public figures, a person is not simply the worse act they have ever done. The kind of immoral act they do would affect my reaction however.

[Jaxb]

I first look for the party that I think will do the best job.
I then look at their policies (which will generally line up with what I agree with because if I think they will do the best job means they and I agree on a majority of issues). Are there any I simply cannot accept?

Here we also have the MMP electoral system, so we can do tactical voting (party vote for one party, vote for local MP from a different party etc.) This can mean that the smaller parties get a fair amount of clout.

In our most recent elections, I didn't actually vote for the party that was closest to me viewpoint wise because I wasn't too sure about their leader, and knew nothing about the local MP candidate, and I was pretty sure they would not clear the 5% threshold which is needed to get a seat in parliament if you don't get a local MP elected. (turned out my sketchiness about the leader of that party was proved correct when it imploded after the elections).

So I voted for NZ's National party, because although I do disagree with them on a number of issues, I do think that overall they are currently the better party to be sitting on the Treasury benches. (I know Starlight will disagree with me on that one, but that's the wonderful thing about politics)

I think it is good to look at the candidate's party to see what it stands for.

[HumbleThinker]

I look at the Supreme Court - who the next president may or may not appoint. Presidents come and go, the court tends to have a much more profound and longer lasting effect on our laws and culture.

Yeah, I can understand this. Despite the good that has come out of the Supreme Court, there has been a lot of bad, too. Overall, I think, for better and for worse, the Supreme Court is far too disruptive of a political force in its current form. I'd prefer a bit more subdued Supreme Court. I think this would greatly decrease Supreme Court appointments being such a strong consideration when voting for president.

[Cow Poke]

I think it is good to look at the candidate's party to see what it stands for.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Democrats = chaos, disorder, mayhem, destruction, homocentricism, anti-Godism, pooping on cop cars, freebies, reward for incompetence and failure, and extreme punishment of success
Republicans = truth, justice, the American way, mom, apple pie and bacon

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I can understand this. Despite the good that has come out of the Supreme Court, there has been a lot of bad, too. Overall, I think, for better and for worse, the Supreme Court is far too disruptive of a political force in its current form. I'd prefer a bit more subdued Supreme Court. I think this would greatly decrease Supreme Court appointments being such a strong consideration when voting for president.

That's a good point - if the supreme court isn't activist, what's the problem?

[HumbleThinker]

That's a good point - if the supreme court isn't activist, what's the problem?

Setting aside that this would require an amendment to the Constitution, I wounder how having judges appointed to terms of 12 years with a third of the Supreme Court's appointments ending every 4 years, and their terms offset by two years from the president's term would affect the power of the Supreme Court. So for at least two years of each new president's term, they are dealing with a Supreme Court of previous presidents' makings, then a third are replaced with their appointments contingent on the Senate approving them. I think despite being a bit awkward it would strike a balance between unelected lifetime officials and having the entire Supreme Court potentially overturned with every president.

[One Bad Pig]

This year, I'm considering downing a fifth and using the "eenie meenie minie mo" method.