Do you agree with who you vote for?

[Tyrandel]

Because I fear I may have caused or will cause a threadjack in the 'Why do people hate republicans?' thread, I have decided to create a new thread on the topic. I also have a personal interest in the topic.

So, topic: Do you believe there is a difference between identifying with and merely voting for a political party? Do you think that this changes depending on how many parties are available?

Or, more succinctly, does voting for someone imply that you agree with everything they say?

If anyone has a snappier title, please propose it. The current one sucks.

I consider there to be a significant difference between the two. When you identify as a member of a political party, you identify with the views of that political party. So if I stated that I was a member of the UKIP, it could safely be presumed that I shared their anti-immigrant nationalist views. If I stated that I voted for the UKIP, there is a chance that I simply view them as the only true Euroskeptics of the UK. (Note: This is just an example. I am more sympathetic to Eurofederalists.) The same thing applies to bigger parties, especially the less of them there are. If I state that I am a Republican, chances are I generally support the Republican party line. However, if I say that I vote Republican, I could just really really hate the Democratic Party while considering myself a Libertarian. The same applies in reverse.

For my personal relationship with the party I vote for, I vote for the Democratic Party of the United States of America. I also consider the Democratic Party to be spineless, weak, far too interested in bipartisanship to be effective and willing to deny the science on nuclear energy and genetically modified organisms to get more votes. However, the Republican Party is much worse and so (because the Democratic Party at least views me as deserving equal rights to heterosexuals) I will vote Democratic unless a better party should come along. However, I would never say that I am a Democrat.

To identify with a political party would mean you view its members as comrades, agreeing with their goals even if you differ on methodology. Simply voting for a political party however could mean you are simply allies of convenience. I myself would never call Hillary Clinton a comrade, but she is still an ally of convenience and I plan to vote for her because I share more views with her party than I share with the Republicans. But I still do not agree with her ideology.

On a related tangent, this is why I consider the current American two-party system to be so intolerable. Neither of the two parties really has a single coherent ideology, instead being 'big tents' which are susceptible to both apathy and extremism. For a current example, the Republicans are extreme while the Democrats are apathetic.

[Lalaki]

It is important to vote for candidates, the citizens running for office. Never a party. Normally we tend to vote more for one party over another, but this should be done based on who you agree with instead of affiliation.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

Suggested title: Do your views correspond with your Party?

For me, certainly not. I am not a big fan of the GOP, but I sure as hell like them more than the Democrats. Sadly, for me, choosing a political party has been about choosing the lesser evil. My views are much more in line with the UK's Conservative Party.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

It is important to vote for candidates, the citizens running for office. Never a party. Normally we tend to vote more for one party over another, but this should be done based on who you agree with instead of affiliation.

If the world were a perfect place, then yes, it would be about selecting people, not parties. Unfortunately, rank and file politicians usually are forced to side with their party on most issues, so in reality, you're electing a party, not a person.

[Senyosu]

I vote for the one who would work best. Ideology and party doesn't matter much to me.

Unless it's the US. Then it will be Democrats 90% of the time.

And I refuse to identify with any political party.

[Lalaki]

It is important to vote for candidates, the citizens running for office. Never a party. Normally we tend to vote more for one party over another, but this should be done based on who you agree with instead of affiliation.

If the world were a perfect place, then yes, it would be about selecting people, not parties. Unfortunately, rank and file politicians usually are forced to side with their party on most issues, so in reality, you're electing a party, not a person.

This is the case sometimes, but it doesn't have to be. I think this issue stems from the way we vote, the mentality, so to speak. We do not take full advantage of the powers present at the ballot box. If we truly grasped the different strategies we could adopt (third parties, more participation in the primaries, and advocating for different voting systems such as Instant-Runoff Alternative), things may change.

[Text People]

There really is no political party for me.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

If the world were a perfect place, then yes, it would be about selecting people, not parties. Unfortunately, rank and file politicians usually are forced to side with their party on most issues, so in reality, you're electing a party, not a person.

This is the case sometimes, but it doesn't have to be. I think this issue stems from the way we vote, the mentality, so to speak. We do not take full advantage of the powers present at the ballot box. If we truly grasped the different strategies we could adopt (third parties, more participation in the primaries, and advocating for different voting systems such as Instant-Runoff Alternative), things may change.

I don't mean to sound demeaning, but that seems like wishful thinking. I do truly wish we could have more parties (hopefully more moderate ones), but, at least currently, it doesn't seem very likely. If there's one thing that the two parties can agree on, it is that neither of them want a third party. Unless there's some serious social unrest, I don't see a viable third party emerging any time soon.

[Exxosia]

In my case, I only will vote for someone who I agree with more than 90% of their positions. Anything less and they are nowhere near representative of me. This has had the effect that I vote for very few people and the bulk of my votes wind up with other parties. This way I don't feel like I threw my vote away on someone that does not represent me. If there is a none-of-these-candidates option, I'll tick that otherwise and I wish they reported those better in the results so people could see how in a lot of runs the winner actually has like 10% of the vote and 83% voted "these people suck" as it might change the political mindset. A Republicrat is going to win regardless of what I do, at least this way I can be content with my choice.

[Cetacea]

Yes I tend to look for parties whose values and ideals align with my own even though I might not agree with everything they push as policy.
Thats the reason why FPP systems of voting are horrible and lead to dysfunction and Tea party extremism. When you only have two choices then you have to be ready to compromise your values for expedience.

Of course on the other end of the continuum is where you get crazy fringe parties that appeal to a small segment. Compromise is a good thing but should be balanced with choice which proportional system grant.

[Scyobayrynn]

I tend to vote for who I believe will cause the least amount of damage to the country I love, with the understanding that no one I choose is going to do it any good because the days of Service to your nation are done, and the days Career Politician are here.

Consider the average member of Congres earns $174,000 a year(anyone believe they work 50 weeks a year which is the average for the working poor?, Yeah me neither) which is over 3 times median HOUSEHOLD income of the United States. Memebers of Congress have to be in COngress FIVE whole years to qualify for their federal pension...yup FIVE FUCKING YEARS for a federal pension.


But I digress.

No, I do not usually agree with EVERYTHING the Candidate I vote for is usually peddling.


But then, who does?

[Avenio]

Just to carry this over from the other thread;

You make assumptions about me because I do not participate in generalizing millions of people.

I make assumptions about you because you have the luxury of not being selected as a target. You can look at a moderate Republican and say "See, now he's not terrible, we should try not to lump him in with the crazies'. But that moderate GOP person still cares so little about me and people like me that they vote for the crazies and stay silent within their own party, and in so doing perpetuate the environment that allows them to persist.

Then please also assume I am not an intolerant politicized ass, who uses weak excuses to justify my own brand of intolerance against those I disagree with.

When did I ever accuse you of either being a Republican or being a supporter of intolerance?

[Scyobayrynn]

Just to carry this over from the other thread;

You make assumptions about me because I do not participate in generalizing millions of people.

I make assumptions about you because you have the luxury of not being selected as a target. You can look at a moderate Republican and say "See, now he's not terrible, we should try not to lump him in with the crazies'. But that moderate GOP person still cares so little about me and people like me that they vote for the crazies and stay silent within their own party, and in so doing perpetuate the environment that allows them to persist.

Then please also assume I am not an intolerant politicized ass, who uses weak excuses to justify my own brand of intolerance against those I disagree with.

When did I ever accuse you of either being a Republican or being a supporter of intolerance?

One, why is this posted in this thread, are you following me from thread to thread?
Thats creepy.

Two, you make assumptions about me because I a dont hate the people I disagree with politically. The assumptions you make arethat I am not a target of some kind. You make this assumption because you yourself feel the need to hate and generalize and yourself be intolerant because of the same behavior from those with the opposing view to your own.

Lets be frank with each other. You are not the "Target" of some political body. There are not death squads coming to find you. There do exist places where this is the case.
In point of fact you and I live in a place where "Target" means they want to make us a little bit more uncomfortable, feel a little less welcomed. And by and large the masses do not support this bigotry when the issue is pressed. So please stop acting like you are going to be lynched by the big bad Republicans.

So I can look at a man or woman who calls themselves Republican and listen to their views and hope that they are change in a Party that has over its life under gone many changes.

I can in fact take a person for an individual, as I myself wished to be taken.

[Tyrandel]

Just to carry this over from the other thread;



I make assumptions about you because you have the luxury of not being selected as a target. You can look at a moderate Republican and say "See, now he's not terrible, we should try not to lump him in with the crazies'. But that moderate GOP person still cares so little about me and people like me that they vote for the crazies and stay silent within their own party, and in so doing perpetuate the environment that allows them to persist.



When did I ever accuse you of either being a Republican or being a supporter of intolerance?

One, why is this posted in this thread, are you following me from thread to thread?
Thats creepy.

Two, you make assumptions about me because I a dont hate the people I disagree with politically. The assumptions you make arethat I am not a target of some kind. You make this assumption because you yourself feel the need to hate and generalize and yourself be intolerant because of the same behavior from those with the opposing view to your own.

Lets be frank with each other. You are not the "Target" of some political body. There are not death squads coming to find you. There do exist places where this is the case.
In point of fact you and I live in a place where "Target" means they want to make us a little bit more uncomfortable, feel a little less welcomed. And by and large the masses do not support this bigotry when the issue is pressed. So please stop acting like you are going to be lynched by the big bad Republicans.

So I can look at a man or woman who calls themselves Republican and listen to their views and hope that they are change in a Party that has over its life under gone many changes.

I can in fact take a person for an individual, as I myself wished to be taken.

This thread branched off from that one because I was worried that it might be locked because of a threadjack and that would be a shame.

Suggested title: Do your views correspond with your Party?

For me, certainly not. I am not a big fan of the GOP, but I sure as hell like them more than the Democrats. Sadly, for me, choosing a political party has been about choosing the lesser evil. My views are much more in line with the UK's Conservative Party.

I like that title. Changed the phrasing a bit to fit in with the OP, but I like it. Quick, snappy and addresses the reader.

This is the case sometimes, but it doesn't have to be. I think this issue stems from the way we vote, the mentality, so to speak. We do not take full advantage of the powers present at the ballot box. If we truly grasped the different strategies we could adopt (third parties, more participation in the primaries, and advocating for different voting systems such as Instant-Runoff Alternative), things may change.

I don't mean to sound demeaning, but that seems like wishful thinking. I do truly wish we could have more parties (hopefully more moderate ones), but, at least currently, it doesn't seem very likely. If there's one thing that the two parties can agree on, it is that neither of them want a third party. Unless there's some serious social unrest, I don't see a viable third party emerging any time soon.

I think Iceland has a lot of independent politicians, though don't quote me on that. Is there anyone from Iceland that can say if I am right or wrong?

Anyway, I would definitely say that in most democratic countries political parties are a fact of politics. Unlike an individual, political parties have larger support networks which can be a major help in advertising an election. I personally think it is best to have as many political parties as possible so as to give voters the highest number of options, with coalitions between different parties allowing for a coherent government to still function.

[Scyobayrynn]

Roger that.

[Threlizdun]

I don't vote for someone unless I legitimately believe voting for them will make a positive difference. For such reasons, I didn't vote in the last election and am unlikely to vote in any situation where only candidates from the two major parties are presented.

[Divitaen]

Not 100% of course, I think mostly when I vote it is voting for the lesser of two evils rather than a genuine agreement with the politicians I vote for, but I never vote strictly along a party line, it really depends on the holistic stances of the candidates.

[Scyobayrynn]

I don't vote for someone unless I legitimately believe voting for them will make a positive difference. For such reasons, I didn't vote in the last election and am unlikely to vote in any situation where only candidates from the two major parties are presented.

You understand the American system is DESIGNED to make a third party option difficult.
We arent two party by accident, and by with holding your vote all youre doing is leaving the choice to smaller pool.

And yes its only smaller by 1, but 1s add up quickly.

[Scyobayrynn]

Not 100% of course, I think mostly when I vote it is voting for the lesser of two evils rather than a genuine agreement with the politicians I vote for, but I never vote strictly along a party line, it really depends on the holistic stances of the candidates.

Slate voting is just madness isnt it?

[Threlizdun]

I don't vote for someone unless I legitimately believe voting for them will make a positive difference. For such reasons, I didn't vote in the last election and am unlikely to vote in any situation where only candidates from the two major parties are presented.

You understand the American system is DESIGNED to make a third party option difficult.
We arent two party by accident, and by with holding your vote all youre doing is leaving the choice to smaller pool.

And yes its only smaller by 1, but 1s add up quickly.

Yes, and when you only have two major parties, we often don't even have alternate parties participating at all to show disagreement with their actions. As such, starving them of votes is one of the only effective measures to get their attention and realize that they need to change. This election was proof that such a strategy can be effective. We have a Republican controlled House and Senate but not with enough control to be able to override vetos. They can't do extensive harm, but the Democrats have been forced to accept that they have to be more than just not being Republicans if they want our votes. They have to actually take action. They won't be made to learn these lessons if we just mindlessly give them out votes as the "lesser of the evils".

[Costa Fierro]

I do with most things, but I am fine with disagreeing on certain things. For example, I agreed with the government selling shares in state owned companies to the legally mandated 51% ownership and I agree with other decisions they have made. I don't agree with the government's education and charter school policy.

I don't think people who vote for a political party should wholeheartedly agree with everything they do. And most people don't, if the alternatives are not up to scratch. See Tony Abbott and the last federal election in Australia as a good example.

[Meridiani Planum]

Or, more succinctly, does voting for someone imply that you agree with everything they say?

I don't think that anyone believes that, especially when tactical voting is so rampant.

However, any candidate that I am willing to vote for most likely shares 90%+ of my political views.

[Idzequitch]

Voting for someone does not mean you have to agree with every word that comes from their mouth. As an American, I really do hate the two party system, because I don't come anywhere close to full agreement with either party's principles.

Since I cannot fully support either party, I am left to look at individual candidates, and decide who I think would do a better job in the position that is up for election. For example, as a New Mexican, I voted for Susana Martinez for governor. That doesn't mean I agree with her on the subject of homosexuality (In fact, I don't), but despite the fact that I disagree with her on that subject, I still felt she would be a better governor than her opponent would be.

[Scyobayrynn]

You understand the American system is DESIGNED to make a third party option difficult.
We arent two party by accident, and by with holding your vote all youre doing is leaving the choice to smaller pool.

And yes its only smaller by 1, but 1s add up quickly.

Yes, and when you only have two major parties, we often don't even have alternate parties participating at all to show disagreement with their actions. As such, starving them of votes is one of the only effective measures to get their attention and realize that they need to change. This election was proof that such a strategy can be effective. We have a Republican controlled House and Senate but not with enough control to be able to override vetos. They can't do extensive harm, but the Democrats have been forced to accept that they have to be more than just not being Republicans if they want our votes. They have to actually take action. They won't be made to learn these lessons if we just mindlessly give them out votes as the "lesser of the evils".

Starving them of votes.
Do you understand that if No One voted at all, their would still be an election.

Not voting only serves to disempower you.

The two parties could care less if you dont vote.

This of course means you must vote in every election, people who think of voting as only the presidential election are hella useless.

[Insaeldor]

Certainly not, or at least not all the time. While I tend to lean towards the democrats and have voted for them in the past I've also voted for Independents, Libertarians, and Republicans as well amd people get a little weirded out when they hear that sort of stuff in that I don't subscribe to voting for one party even though I'm a registered Democrat.

Let's take this past midterm for example.

U.S. Senate: I voted for the the independent Greg Orman for a few reasons. I agreed with him on nearly all the issues regarding social issues and economic ones (he was basicly a toned down version of our Libertarian candidate) and since our current senator had been in Washington for nearly 30 year I felt it was time we need to someone new into office. He also made himself a multimillionaire through owning an company which installed environmentally friendly lighting for domestic and commercial use and has a degree in economics from Princeton. Needless to say I though he was perfectly suited for a successor to Pat Roberts.

U.S. House: I voted for the Libertarian candidate Since the two people from my district were ether a stupid cunt who's done nothing of worth in her time as a Reprasenative, or a stupid cunt who handy done anything in her time as a local politician. The Libertarian had some business experiance so I felt comfterble with him.

Governor: I voted Democrate on this one. Brownback is for lack of a better term incompetent. He's policies have lead to a below average education system, a drop in our state credit rating, and below average economic growth. The Democrate had plenty of experiance with the state legislature and was noted for working with Republicans as the state senate minority leader.

State Rep: I know the Incumbent as he's a family friend and to be honest his a pretty shitty person. I voted for the democrat because she at least had a plan for what she wanted to do. The other guy was just "I'm a vet I'm a republican vote for me!" Or at least that's how it felt.

State Senate: I voted Republican on this one because unlike many of the other politicians in my area he's pragmatic and after checking out his voting history I felt safe in voting for him. Plus his democratic Challanger had no prior experiance so I didnt think she due much of a good job.