How do you choose whom to vote for?

[Doitzel]

What? We shouldn't vote for people on the basis of policy positions? That's asinine.

Why?

If the better candidate actually has different ideological aspirations to yours, shouldn't you vote for them, because they are better?

Why would you vote for a poorer candidate that just agreed with you?

Nobody's going to agree with you 100%, that's a ridiculous expectation. I don't understand what you're getting at with this "better candidate" nonsense. The better candidate is the one that is going to enact better policy. Of course there are other things that factor in but primarily people vote on issues. So do I.

I think my ideology / policy beliefs are better for the country so I vote in the hopes that they get carried out.

And, if you're wrong?

Then the person I voted for loses the next election? Well, unless they accuse the opposition of being unpatriotic and lying about their service record, but that's a different argument...

Yeah, it pushes my beliefs on others

You admit it, then - I guess it wasn't that asinine after all.

What are you babbling on about? What's asinine is that you're saying people should vote for the "better candidate", which you then fail to define, as opposed to a candidate that represents their own views on issues important to them.

I mean, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here -- possibly because you aren't actually saying anything. What I'm seeing is that you think it's bad that I would vote for a candidate because they have pledged to fight for single-payer healthcare. They then go on to sponsor a successful bill moving us to a single-payer healthcare system. Guess what that does? It pushes my belief that single-payer healthcare is more economically viable and equitable on other people (among other things).

Bad? I don't think so.

[Cameroi]

periodicals and other sources focused on areas of interest to me.
that report truthfully their public voting record on those areas of interest.

long before the campaigning heats up, and nothing about any of them remains reliable.

[Grave_n_idle]

What? We shouldn't vote for people on the basis of policy positions? That's asinine.

Why?

If the better candidate actually has different ideological aspirations to yours, shouldn't you vote for them, because they are better?

Why would you vote for a poorer candidate that just agreed with you?

Nobody's going to agree with you 100%, that's a ridiculous expectation. I don't understand what you're getting at with this "better candidate" nonsense. The better candidate is the one that is going to enact better policy. Of course there are other things that factor in but primarily people vote on issues. So do I.

I think my ideology / policy beliefs are better for the country so I vote in the hopes that they get carried out.

And, if you're wrong?

Then the person I voted for loses the next election? Well, unless they accuse the opposition of being unpatriotic and lying about their service record, but that's a different argument...

Yeah, it pushes my beliefs on others

You admit it, then - I guess it wasn't that asinine after all.

What are you babbling on about? What's asinine is that you're saying people should vote for the "better candidate", which you then fail to define, as opposed to a candidate that represents their own views on issues important to them.

I mean, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here -- possibly because you aren't actually saying anything. What I'm seeing is that you think it's bad that I would vote for a candidate because they have pledged to fight for single-payer healthcare. They then go on to sponsor a successful bill moving us to a single-payer healthcare system. Guess what that does? It pushes my belief that single-payer healthcare is more economically viable and equitable on other people (among other things).

Bad? I don't think so.

Right. You don't THINK so. It's all opinion.

You believe YOUR beliefs about policy MUST be right. You believe that strongly enough to make YOUR beliefs about policy the law.

Not because the candidate is smarter. Not because the opposition was weak, corrupt, or anything - but because you think that you MUST have picked the right candidate... based on their agreement with YOU.

Such overarching hubris!

[Vault 10]

Someone who is a strong non-corrupt genius has no more of a right to dictate others how to live their lives than someone who is dumb, weak and corrupt.

[Grave_n_idle]

Someone who is a strong non-corrupt genius has no more of a right to dictate others how to live their lives than someone who is dumb, weak and corrupt.

'Right'? No.

But perhaps they should have greater input.

[Vault 10]

Of course not. I've seen extremely intelligent people hold beliefs that make even me shiver. Seen them making arguments for 'utopias' where people are essentially stripped of free will, all for their own good.

[Omnicracy]

What? We shouldn't vote for people on the basis of policy positions? That's asinine.

Why?

If the better candidate actually has different ideological aspirations to yours, shouldn't you vote for them, because they are better?

Why would you vote for a poorer candidate that just agreed with you?

Nobody's going to agree with you 100%, that's a ridiculous expectation. I don't understand what you're getting at with this "better candidate" nonsense. The better candidate is the one that is going to enact better policy. Of course there are other things that factor in but primarily people vote on issues. So do I.

I think my ideology / policy beliefs are better for the country so I vote in the hopes that they get carried out.

And, if you're wrong?

Then the person I voted for loses the next election? Well, unless they accuse the opposition of being unpatriotic and lying about their service record, but that's a different argument...

Yeah, it pushes my beliefs on others

You admit it, then - I guess it wasn't that asinine after all.

What are you babbling on about? What's asinine is that you're saying people should vote for the "better candidate", which you then fail to define, as opposed to a candidate that represents their own views on issues important to them.

I mean, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here -- possibly because you aren't actually saying anything. What I'm seeing is that you think it's bad that I would vote for a candidate because they have pledged to fight for single-payer healthcare. They then go on to sponsor a successful bill moving us to a single-payer healthcare system. Guess what that does? It pushes my belief that single-payer healthcare is more economically viable and equitable on other people (among other things).

Bad? I don't think so.

Right. You don't THINK so. It's all opinion.

You believe YOUR beliefs about policy MUST be right. You believe that strongly enough to make YOUR beliefs about policy the law.

Not because the candidate is smarter. Not because the opposition was weak, corrupt, or anything - but because you think that you MUST have picked the right candidate... based on their agreement with YOU.

Such overarching hubris!

Either this guy is high or something or he has to say how you should vote soon. Of corse people ALL think they're right! If you don't think your right, then you think your wrong. Now THAT is asinine if you ask me. The only argument I could kinda understand for what your saying would be libertarianism, wich I think is the best way to go with the federal government. However, that is still putting your beliefs unto others. That is still thinking your right and there wrong, you just think it shouldn't be delt with at that level of government. Mabey you acctualy make perfect sence and we all just misunderstood you. I hope it is the latter.

[Omnicracy]

Someone who is a strong non-corrupt genius has no more of a right to dictate others how to live their lives than someone who is dumb, weak and corrupt.

'Right'? No.

But perhaps they should have greater input.

Now whos imposing their beliefs on others?

[Grave_n_idle]

Someone who is a strong non-corrupt genius has no more of a right to dictate others how to live their lives than someone who is dumb, weak and corrupt.

'Right'? No.

But perhaps they should have greater input.

Now whos imposing their beliefs on others?

Give me a clue?

[Omnicracy]

Someone who is a strong non-corrupt genius has no more of a right to dictate others how to live their lives than someone who is dumb, weak and corrupt.

'Right'? No.

But perhaps they should have greater input.

Now whos imposing their beliefs on others?

Give me a clue?

Asking if that is right and then saying no.

[Grave_n_idle]

Of corse people ALL think they're right!

I certainly think I'm right about some things - that doesn't mean I claim to BE right about those things, necessarily.

If you don't think your right, then you think your wrong. Now THAT is asinine if you ask me.

I didn't ask you.

The point I'm making is - if you think you're right, and you vote for a person because he/she agrees with you - then you are saying that the entire measure of what should be done for the nation, should be decided by people that agree with YOU.

Which is amazing hubris.

[Grave_n_idle]

Someone who is a strong non-corrupt genius has no more of a right to dictate others how to live their lives than someone who is dumb, weak and corrupt.

'Right'? No.

But perhaps they should have greater input.

Now whos imposing their beliefs on others?

Give me a clue?

Asking if that is right and then saying no.

A 'right'. No one should have more a A 'right' to dictate, etc.

[Castleclose]

I vote Independent. Purely because each one of our politicans are corrupt or useless.

[Omnicracy]

Someone who is a strong non-corrupt genius has no more of a right to dictate others how to live their lives than someone who is dumb, weak and corrupt.

'Right'? No.

But perhaps they should have greater input.

Now whos imposing their beliefs on others?

Give me a clue?

Asking if that is right and then saying no.

A 'right'. No one should have more a A 'right' to dictate, etc.

Ah, then this post is moot, seeing as it was based on a typo.

[Omnicracy]

Of corse people ALL think they're right!

I certainly think I'm right about some things - that doesn't mean I claim to BE right about those things, necessarily.

So you just think your right and then act opposing to what you believe to be right?

If you don't think your right, then you think your wrong. Now THAT is asinine if you ask me.

I didn't ask you.

The point I'm making is - if you think you're right, and you vote for a person because he/she agrees with you - then you are saying that the entire measure of what should be done for the nation, should be decided by people that agree with YOU.

Which is amazing hubris.[/quote]

So, let me see if I understand. To vote for a candidate who shares my political beliefs because they share my political beliefs is a bad thing. It is bad because to think that a government should be run based upon the opinions and beliefs of one person is bad. Is that what your saying?

[Vault 10]

The point I'm making is - if you think you're right, and you vote for a person because he/she agrees with you - then you are saying that the entire measure of what should be done for the nation, should be decided by people that agree with YOU.

...which may be less than perfect, true.

But what other option do you have?

Vote for whoever seems to have the highest IQ?
Vote for whoever is the most oppressed?
Vote for whoever looks the cutest?

[Omnicracy]

The point I'm making is - if you think you're right, and you vote for a person because he/she agrees with you - then you are saying that the entire measure of what should be done for the nation, should be decided by people that agree with YOU.

...which may be less than perfect, true.

But what other option do you have?

Vote for whoever seems to have the highest IQ?
Vote for whoever is the most oppressed?
Vote for whoever looks the cutest?

Thats what I was going to get at once he responded to my last post.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I flick a coin whereever it lands i pick it up, so voting isn't particularly appealing to me because i don't know where the politician i vote for will land.

[Kanones]

It seems to me that in the process of electing leaders, we are, to an extent, *giving* them the right to make choices on how the majority of people live their lives.

It also seems to me, as a result, that the choice to vote for a candidate can *only* be based on personal ideology. If you choose a candidate based upon to what extent they agree with your own ideals, you're electing them upon the premise that they won't enact laws that restrict the way you choose to live. If you choose a candidate based strictly upon your view of what's "good for society", though the candidate might not precisely agree with you on every issue, you're still making the bet that they're not going to go out of their way to make your life harder than anybody else's.

[Omnicracy]

It seems to me that in the process of electing leaders, we are, to an extent, *giving* them the right to make choices on how the majority of people live their lives.

It also seems to me, as a result, that the choice to vote for a candidate can *only* be based on personal ideology. If you choose a candidate based upon to what extent they agree with your own ideals, you're electing them upon the premise that they won't enact laws that restrict the way you choose to live. If you choose a candidate based strictly upon your view of what's "good for society", though the candidate might not precisely agree with you on every issue, you're still making the bet that they're not going to go out of their way to make your life harder than anybody else's.

Unless you think things being harder for you are for the greater good, but I see your point and fully agree.

[Mirkana]

I choose based on their views and experience. For legislatures (Senate, House, state legislature) political views are most important. For local positions (school district council, Port of Seattle commissioner), experience is king. For major authority positions (President, governor), it's a mix.

For instance, in the 2008 Presidential election, I voted for McCain. I liked both candidates' views, but McCain's eons of experience gave him the edge. Had Obama run against, say, Mike Huckabee, I would have voted for Obama.

[Omnicracy]

I choose based on their views and experience. For legislatures (Senate, House, state legislature) political views are most important. For local positions (school district council, Port of Seattle commissioner), experience is king. For major authority positions (President, governor), it's a mix.

For instance, in the 2008 Presidential election, I voted for McCain. I liked both candidates' views, but McCain's eons of experience gave him the edge. Had Obama run against, say, Mike Huckabee, I would have voted for Obama.

McCain was the only one with a hope of a chance against Obama, thats why the republican party let him get the nomination.

[Mirkana]

I choose based on their views and experience. For legislatures (Senate, House, state legislature) political views are most important. For local positions (school district council, Port of Seattle commissioner), experience is king. For major authority positions (President, governor), it's a mix.

For instance, in the 2008 Presidential election, I voted for McCain. I liked both candidates' views, but McCain's eons of experience gave him the edge. Had Obama run against, say, Mike Huckabee, I would have voted for Obama.

McCain was the only one with a hope of a chance against Obama, thats why the republican party let him get the nomination.

Irrelevant. I had liked McCain for a long time. In the Senate he was a maverick and moderate, which I liked. Of course I didn't always agree with him, but that's always going to be the case. My thought on McCain was "This guy would make an awesome President".

[Omnicracy]

I choose based on their views and experience. For legislatures (Senate, House, state legislature) political views are most important. For local positions (school district council, Port of Seattle commissioner), experience is king. For major authority positions (President, governor), it's a mix.

For instance, in the 2008 Presidential election, I voted for McCain. I liked both candidates' views, but McCain's eons of experience gave him the edge. Had Obama run against, say, Mike Huckabee, I would have voted for Obama.

McCain was the only one with a hope of a chance against Obama, thats why the republican party let him get the nomination.

Irrelevant. I had liked McCain for a long time. In the Senate he was a maverick and moderate, which I liked. Of course I didn't always agree with him, but that's always going to be the case. My thought on McCain was "This guy would make an awesome President".

I thought the same thing. Espetialy sence his stratage for Iraq is what turned the tied.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ah, then this post is moot, seeing as it was based on a typo.

It wasn't based on a typo - it was based on you getting on your high horse about something I didn't even suggest.