View Full Version : Do you vote the issues or the party line?
I don't seem to fit into any party - dems, GOP, etc.. as I have strong conservative as well as liberal leanings (i.e. pro-gunownership and pro-universal healthcare. Pro-military and pro-gay marriage. Pro-heavy crackdown on illegal immigration and pro- women in combat. Pro-big buisness with minimal government interference and pro-government regulatorly oversite for safety and environmental regs. etc...). Do you always support and believe in the whole party line or are you as screwed up as me :D
editted to add: that I'm also a reg. Independant
goldensmom
7-26-11, 1:56pm
I vote the issues. I consider myself a independent conservative. Even though my father was an elected official in the Republican party I've always voted independent, on the issues, not for a party or for a candidate. I cannot vote in some local primaries where a party affiliation (Republican or Democrat) must be declared because I won't declare one. On those surveys going around near election time I come out half and and half and other. I'm not screw up, I just don't agree totally with any party's platform.
Definitely the issues. I'm independent, but democratic leaning with a pinch of libertariansm--socially liberal, fiscally conservative
Issues are more important to me than party line.
Libertarian here: socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. I'm averse to the government dictating personal behavior as a general rule, and I don't think the US necessarily needs to be the pocketbook for the world.
treehugger
7-26-11, 2:21pm
Has anyone ever actually heard someone admit that they only vote the party line? I sure haven't. And I don't, either. :) But I will admit that I often end up voting for candidates in the same party, once I have determined which ones I agree with on the issues that are important to me.
Kara
Libertarian here: socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. I'm averse to the government dictating personal behavior as a general rule, and I don't think the US necessarily needs to be the pocketbook for the world.
In agreement here. I've never been registered anything except independent. Usually take the first close look at more conservative candidates or sides of an issue, but don't always end up voting that way.
Independent here. I generally vote the issues. With Presidents, I generally vote democrat as I most agree with their platforms. Not saying I agree totally with anyone, just mostly, although I have voted republican in the past. But I have to admit, since the crazies have taken over the republican party, fewer and fewer seem to promote the issues I would be interested in. Or rather fewer and fewer seem to be rational, vote worthy people. I have been known to vote the other party even though I disagreed almost completely with them simply because I didn't think the other guy/gal was up to the task. When it comes right down to it, issues aside, the person has to be intelligent, rational, and capable. If my gut tells me they can't do the job, or are a loony, I won't vote for them, no matter how much they say that I want to hear.
I've voted both parties, voted for Obama because I thought he would be more of a change than McCain. This being said, I always like McCain personally and think his choice of Sarah Palin cost him the election.
No party does everything I want. I don't like the crazy liberals who do not want to control the borders. I think more control should be used in giving government handouts. But, if there is to be more control, that means more people to research and check everyone out. Seems most of the Republicans have a problem with bigger gov. They don't believe in abortion, but don't seem to care what happens to children once born. We can't have it both ways, there has to be a middle ground. And, don't start yelling personal responsibility, of course everyone should be responsible, but brains and character are not requirments for reproduction. The Republicans have better to offer than the current lineup. Most Americans want someone who is moderate and will vote this way. The "tea baggers" have hurt the Republican party and I believe this will show in the upcoming election.
loosechickens
7-26-11, 8:21pm
Personally, I think it's important to look past many of the "hot button" issues, to assess which candidates or which party's main outlook, worldview and decisions regarding legislation in many areas is a better fit for you. Because parties, especially if their underlying agendas would not be popular with a large segment of the population in and of themselves, often use such "hot button" issues as religion, gun rights, abortion, etc., that can be depended on to work people up, to mask other policies that if the voters were looking more carefully, they might not stomach.
They all do it. Our job as informed citizens should be to look past the emotional issues, ask ourselves if we are being manipulated by those issues about which we feel strongly. Because it happens. We all want to feel that we vote for people who agree with our worldviews, but surprisingly, often if we only look at those emotional "hot button" issues, we often find ourselves voting for people whose other actions, legislation, etc., would work against us in other areas.
I certainly understand the problem. Because I think most Americans really just want a government that works for the good of the society as a whole, balances various interests so that none are out of balance, and unfortunately, neither party really is offering that, because our primary systems, gerrymandering of districts, etc., has virtually destroyed the middle, where most people would really like to see our government be, and gives us, instead, far right or far left politicians, chosen by the bases of their parties in the primaries, that push both parties away from the middle, where most of the citizens really want it to be.
So, we end up with hard prochoice or hard antichoice options on abortion, rather than the ideas to work toward needing fewer abortions, ensuring the least number possible of unwanted pregnancies, etc. Instead we get folks who either advocate making abortion illegal, sometimes in ALL cases, even those of rape or incest, and others who advocate abortion on demand, even if late in the term of pregnancy, etc.
Just as most of us could see some reasonable gun control laws that would help prevent the mentally ill or unstable people being able to get guns, or to limit or restrict heavy automatic weapons, but would not want to support major legislation that would destroy our rights to exercise Second Amendment rights. Instead we get politicians who are either rabidly against even the most reasonable controls on guns, seeing any possible regulation as a slippery slope toward confiscation of our guns, or politicians who want ever more stringent gun control, want to see guns forbidden, etc. But few where most citizens live, somewhere in the middle.
JMHO.
Spartana, I don't even understand this question. We vote for humans, not ideology.
I have in recent years picked a party and voted for its candidates because hell, they always caucus with their party and SELDOM deviate from the party line, so why bother to get into a lot of detail on issues? In big votes they will invariably side with their party. And also the party platform is all over the map on many many issues, so you can't "vote the issues or the party" since you aren't voting for either.
If a candidate is a complete d*ck I might vote for the other side. I considered voting for the other side for Senator some years ago because she presented herself as a conservative Democrat and she had a pretty good rep in this state, but in those big D.C. votes where libera/conservatives lined up, guess which side she was on? The Wrong one.
...Just as most of us could see some reasonable gun control laws that would help prevent the mentally ill or unstable people being able to get guns, or to limit or restrict heavy automatic weapons, but would not want to support major legislation that would destroy our rights to exercise Second Amendment rights. ...
JMHO.
There ARE gun laws, quite a lot of them. I consider that level of control "reasonable."
Mangano's Gold
7-26-11, 10:12pm
In a different time I would weigh candidates differently, but given the environment in recent years it would be hard for me to vote for any Republican. And I’d vote for the Democrat unless they had serious ethical issues, like hiding a block of cash in their freezer (naked pics or prostitutes, no problem!).
Imagine poor lil’ ole m trying to find candidates:
-- On social issues, I’m pro-gay and pro-fetus (aka anti-straight, anti-woman)
-- I think we’d be better off if more women stayed home with their babies, and think public policy should reflect this.
-- Pro-universal healthcare, pro-death panels
-- Pro-”job killing tax hikes” and super-duper pro-tax increases on the super-rich
--Pro-religion (yet personally an atheist) and think the Religious Right could be a force for good if not for their alliance with the anti-taxers
-- I support an expansion of government, not a contraction, except for defense. If defense can’t be cut, turn it into a stealth jobs program for young men and women
-- I see less of a distinction than most between Big Business and Small Business, and consider myself pro-business
-- I believe most corporate executives actually have pretty high ethical standards - much higher than your average person
-- And I’d like to see the Financial Services sector of the economy shrunk down to the size were you can “drown it in the bathtub”
Zigzagman
7-27-11, 12:22am
I have never voted at the federal level for Republicans (The party of Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller was replaced by the party of Strom Thurmond). Admittedly I voted for a Republican dogcatcher once. I think he ran unopposed.
I wish they would stop all straight ticket voting to the point of not even identifying party affiliation on the ballot. People are so lazy that in many cases they never even take the time to know who they are voting for.
Peace
ok voting for issues is good but they are constantly inserting "wedge issues" that really are not the "current issues" we are dealing with........ BUT they make them the "current issues" instead of the REAL current issues! ugh.
I am pretty much a straight line party voter. Even when I don't personally like the candidate (McCain) or some of the Senators/Congressmen running, too often in Washington (like it or not) important issues are often voted down party lines, so we need the "bodies" to make that happen.
I am a registered Republican, dw is a registered Democrat - so we normally just cancel out each others votes! For local issues I am not such a straight party voter - but we tend to know the person better than on the national level.
Spartana, I don't even understand this question. We vote for humans, not ideology.
We vote for humans who will represent our ideology.
i·de·ol·o·gy ( d - l -j , d -). n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies. 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, ...
Gardenarian
7-27-11, 2:07pm
I have always voted Democratic, but the person I vote for in the primaries never seems to make it to the finish line.
I think campaign finance reform should be the #1 issue.
The electoral college seems like a dinosaur to me; I think it's time to get rid of it.
In California we always have a whole slew of ballot issues and propositions, and I do sometimes go against the party line on bond measures, parcel taxes, propositions, etc.
I vote party line, because of the issues. I don't really trust any particular politician to stay true to any issue. But over time I've seen each party be sort of, kind of, usually, generally leaning a particular way on particular issues. Not that I particularly approve of either party, but I find one less distasteful than the other.
I find the whole two-party system to be rather odd. But then I grew up in a country where in my lifetime there were always 3 major parties, and other than here I've lived in a country with four major parties (albeit one of those was something of a one-issue party). IMHO, the US desperately needs a third party. I'd say centrist, but the Democrats already have that spot (on my scale at least - which is skewed by having lived in liberal / socialist / communist European and other North American countries).
I tend libertarian on social issues, moderately fiscally conservative on the economy, but also in favor of higher taxes because I do think that government services are just that: a service we pay for. Therefore they should be run like a business, with as much attention paid to efficiency and customer service as any successful business. However, unlike many in the US, I do think that certain services are best provided by the government because charity and private enterprise have failed to effectively do so in the past. And if you don't like the service, you vote the government out.
On the business side I favor less paperwork for the small business, but strong and effective regulation in key sectors, such as the financial sector (aka "no repeat of 2008"), healthcare, polluting industries, etc. For the military, I like the British model - lean, professional and used when truly necessary (let's not talk about Iraq which was a despicable aberration, IMO).
I think advocates of tiny government sometimes forget that many of these programs and agencies were put in place for very good reasons; usually related to the failure of private industry and charity to effectively meet those needs.
I'd vote for the Democrat unless they had serious ethical issues, like hiding a block of cash in their freezer (naked pics or prostitutes, no problem
Maybe John Edwards and Arnie S. can tag team up for a a multi-party party (naked pics or prostitutes no problem :devil::devil::0!!!).
I'm curious as to why you think being anti-abortion equates being anti-woman? Lots of people who are anti-abortion (me) for moral, ethical or religious reasons are stromg supporters of equal rights and opportunities for women. Same with the pro-gay/anti-straight comment. I think most people who are gay or support gay rights don't have any negative feelings towards straight people.
Also curious what kind of govmint policy changes you think should be enacted to reflect your belief that a woman should stay home with her babies (and since you didn't say "parents" I assume you aren't including stay at home fathers (married or single)? I don't like the idea of ANY govmint interference in my personal life so can't imagine what kind of policies you could mean. Would you restrict a woman's right to work after birth? Or are you talking about some kind of taxpayer financial support for stay at home moms? Should tax payers financially support a person who made a voluntary choice to have children? I don't think so at all - that's the responsibilty of the parents. Don't have babies if you can't afford it IMHO. And what about peole like Octomom and her 14 kids - YIKES!! That would really be Iris Lilys idea of a "Nanny Govmint" :-)!! What about people who adopt foreign kids? Again, just curious not trying to start an argument.
For me, it's more a local/regional/national assessment. I voted for a R sheriff for many years because he was the right candidate. Ditto a few state officials - Sec. of State, for one.
At the national level, hell would have to freeze over for me to vote R. In all my years, the only R I heard make any sense at all at the national level was Goldwater when his grandson came out as gay. (Not before, let me assure you!) "The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay,” Goldwater asserts. “You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.””
iris lily
7-28-11, 12:30am
...I'm curious as to why you think being anti-abortion equates being anti-woman?...
Feminism * Choice * Support Women * Her Body * - Google any combination and you'll see the idea represented in any number of hits on the first page of your search.
My first attempt revealed these snippets on the first page:
"...The feminist principle of choice is central to the mandate of equality-seeking organizations. It underlies both the work that we do and the way that we do it. Understanding the meaning of choice and how it informs our organization’s work strengthens the collective women’s movement..."
"Essay: Why Pro-Life is Pro-Woman"
and etc.
In other words, it's a common idea, that anti-choice is anti-woman. Personally I think it is stupid, but there ya go.
And She-Rah the gooberment DOES give money to mommies to pop out tots. The more tots, the more money. Octomom may soon qualify if she continues to lose her support or assets.
i focus largely on the long-term policies (and changes) in a given party.
the reason for this is actually quite simple: the parties in power now, and their ideologies, can become cemented and create certain problems down-the-line.
it was regan-era economics, for example (the de-regulation of banks), that was one of many factors that caused the current economic situation in the US. that's nearly 30 years later.
another aspect is judges. this is a biggie. when a judge moves into superior federal courts or the supreme court, then the "temper" or "flavor" of the court moves one way or the other way or another way (since there are more than two ways). This will affect policy for *many* years to come, to be honest, and it affects it nearly at every level of government. Why? many of these are life-long postings, and peopel these days can live a *long* time, and those judges -- if doing something they love and of sound mind and body -- can serve until they keel over and 927 years old. Which means, they serve from age 55-60 or so until they are 927, at which point they've affected 867 years of policy interpretation of the constitution in regards to law and lawmaking. (i grant you, it's likely a max of 30 years, but still). And, what was constitutional law in 1850, btw, is still constitutional law today UNLESS it has been expressly turned over by a court, and -- to my knowledge, there isn't one constitutional question that has been turned over by the court to date (because it undermines their authority).
Thus, understanding the party, what the party is doing, and where it seems to be going -- this is *really* important. and it's not just voting on specific issues per se -- that is part of the equation -- but really voting on specific agendas over time so that the constitution, as you see it, and thereby the government as you see it can continue to flow properly.
So, for me, I prefer to vote based on judges. I know it seems nuts, but i'm a strict constructionist (a la scalia) for the most part, and yet i have strong liberal political leanings. I do not get on with the republican party (as it stands now. read "invasion of the party snatchers" by gould), but I find that i am not really a dem either. I tend toward moderates!
And She-Rah the gooberment DOES give money to mommies to pop out tots. The more tots, the more money. Octomom may soon qualify if she continues to lose her support or assets.
Iris Lilly, I'm rather shocked at what sounds like a pretty cynical and insulting assessment of the reality of being a poor parent trying to feed one's children. And "mommies ... pop out tots"?? Seriously??
The data is that the average length of time a family is on public assistance is 18 months, and the majority of the people on assistance are children under the age of 12. No one I have ever worked with, lived with, lived next to, or met has EVER expressed a desire to rely on assistance to raise their family. I was a social worked for many years, and have been a non-profit administrator since I left direct service. I've know lots of families receiving assistance, and I as very glad that every one of those kids had at least some decent calories in their day.
From whence comes your thinking? And "the gooberment"? Are you secretly an anarchist?
I vote on the issues, no party here what so ever.
iris lily
7-28-11, 10:14am
Are you secretly an anarchist?
An anarchist? I'm more of a monarchist. :) I'd like to restore the Stuarts to the throne of England and then we could come back under their wing.
Actually I tend to like many local government services, but have learned that the feds have their heads up their ass.
In other words, it's a common idea, that anti-choice is anti-woman. Personally I think it is stupid, but there ya go.
I guess as a woman I like to think that I am more than my reproductive ability.
Mangano's Gold
7-28-11, 7:42pm
I'm curious as to why you think being anti-abortion equates being anti-woman? Lots of people who are anti-abortion (me) for moral, ethical or religious reasons are stromg supporters of equal rights and opportunities for women. Same with the pro-gay/anti-straight comment. I think most people who are gay or support gay rights don't have any negative feelings towards straight people.
.
I definitely don't equate being anti-abortion with being anti-woman, though I understand why many see it that way. I think the pro-life position is gender-neutral. The organisms whose existences are terminated would develop into males/females in equal numbers, and both men and women support/oppose abortion in roughly equal numbers. It's just that women bear the much larger burden in pregnancy and child rearing than men. IMO, this is unavoidable and the way our species evolved (or God created if one prefers). And the abortion remedy, IMO, is worse than the perceived inequity it intends to alleviate.
The idea of ant-straight is just silly, albeit woth a chuckle.
Also curious what kind of govmint policy changes you think should be enacted to reflect your belief that a woman should stay home with her babies (and since you didn't say "parents" I assume you aren't including stay at home fathers (married or single)? I don't like the idea of ANY govmint interference in my personal life so can't imagine what kind of policies you could mean. Would you restrict a woman's right to work after birth? Or are you talking about some kind of taxpayer financial support for stay at home moms? Should tax payers financially support a person who made a voluntary choice to have children? I don't think so at all - that's the responsibilty of the parents. Don't have babies if you can't afford it IMHO. And what about peole like Octomom and her 14 kids - YIKES!! That would really be Iris Lilys idea of a "Nanny Govmint" :-)!! What about people who adopt foreign kids? Again, just curious not trying to start an argument.
Simply put, I think that the government should subsidize the ability of new mothers to stay home with their babies. Not force them, but give them the choice. I have no doubt that the child-free (and most others) would passionately oppose this. They would see it as subsidizing a choice (and many think there are too many babies anyways). I would fall back on similar arguments used to defend public schooling via taxation of everyone with a roof over their head.
Have never voted for a Republican candidate for Federal office, and there are absolutely no circumstances where I ever will.
To do so would be to enable people in other regions of the country so drastically different from my personal views that I could not consider it, even if I agreed with the individual candidate on the issues. I voted against a congresswoman who I considered an excellent representative a number of times on this basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Morella
I have voted for a few Republican candidates for state/local office, and would consider it in the future. Those candidates have generally been in officially nonpartisan elections for county government positions, a local oddity related to rules to allow Federal employees to run for local office.
...
Simply put, I think that the government should subsidize the ability of new mothers to stay home with their babies. ...I have no doubt that the child-free (and most others) would passionately oppose this...
You betcha buster.
And in a way, family aid/welfare payments/TANF does do that for certain economic classess. Don't get a job and stay home with your kids, here's some money for that.
I vote against the candidate who views private property as a national resource.
I vote for the candidate who is more interested in limiting government than expanding it.
I vote against the candidate who feels we needn’t follow the constitution as written because John Adams didn’t have a Facebook account.
I vote for the candidate who voices a belief in American Exceptionalism.
I vote against the candidate who thinks apologizing for our history makes him/her appear more cosmopolitan.
I vote for the candidate who considers it immoral to indenture future generations to pay for today’s comforts.
In general, I prefer to be governed by people guided more by tradition than the latest elite fashion. It helps if their vision isn’t constrained by ethnic, gender or class politics. This generally requires me to vote Republican.
I vote for Democrats all the bloody time in local elections. I cannot escape it. Sometimes they are even Republicans in outlook but they have to run on the Democratic ticket given the Democratic machine that runs the place here. God forbid we should actually have two parties operate.
What is American Exceptionalism?
I vote against the candidate who views private property as a national resource.
I vote for the candidate who is more interested in limiting government than expanding it.
I vote against the candidate who feels we needn’t follow the constitution as written because John Adams didn’t have a Facebook account.
I vote for the candidate who voices a belief in American Exceptionalism.
I vote against the candidate who thinks apologizing for our history makes him/her appear more cosmopolitan.
I vote for the candidate who considers it immoral to indenture future generations to pay for today’s comforts.
In general, I prefer to be governed by people guided more by tradition than the latest elite fashion. It helps if their vision isn’t constrained by ethnic, gender or class politics. This generally requires me to vote Republican.
LDAHL, what is American Exceptionalism? And, I don't understand the "...candidate who thinks apologizing for our history makes him/her appear more cosmopolitan." Would you be willing to clarify for me? Thanks!
I vote for Democrats all the bloody time in local elections. I cannot escape it. Sometimes they are even Republicans in outlook but they have to run on the Democratic ticket given the Democratic machine that runs the place here. God forbid we should actually have two parties operate.
When I was a kid, my dad used to say 'I want a republican in Washington and a democrat at home' but that was when republicans were mostly about fiscal responsibility. Now they discard fiscal responsibility (this theatre about the debt limit is bogus show man ship) for 'God, guns and gays'. Not at all like the republican party of when I was young.
What is American Exceptionalism?
“Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics. The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=M2FhMTg4Njk0NTQwMmFlMmYzZDg2YzgyYjdmYjhhMzU
And, I don't understand the "...candidate who thinks apologizing for our history makes him/her appear more cosmopolitan." Would you be willing to clarify for me? Thanks!
I was thinking of the infamous "Obama Apology Tour" of 2009 as one example. There is a place for self-criticism, but I prefer our national leadership to present our case to the world with a little more assurance and a little less false humility. Don't claim we have a special responsibility for nuclear arms control because we've used them against a fanatical enemy. Let the fanatical enemies of the future draw their own conclusions about our will to do it again. Don't apologize to the French for our "arrogance". And especially don't apologize for past policies, and then continue them. It only makes you appear indecisive.
What is American Exceptionalism?
American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.
Peace
American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.
Peace
Perfect? No. Different? Most certainly.
I'm well aware this is a term some parties like to defiine for themselves in order to sneer at. It's sort of like the "American Dream" in that respect.
No doubt there's a bit of self-love involved, but I think there's more to it than that. I'm thinking in terms of a special and unique history and culture that has allowed us to create an exceptional role for ourselves in world affairs. Fortunately, history is not high school. We shouldn't fret overmuch over our popularity.
Interesting, thanks for the clarifications. I don't see the benefit of a self-assessment of "special". Seems kinda' self-congratulatory, and contradictory to what I have always thought of as core American values: don't toot your own horn, be modest, play nicely with others; those sentiments. For me, the "we're special" is unbecoming and rather early adolescent behavior.
I've never heard the phrase "Obama apology tour" either. Given the arrogance of the US during the Bush years, and the impacts this had on our international relationships, seems to me that some humility and acknowledgment of missteps and mis-speaking are appropriate. I sure know that apologies go a long way towards mending fences when I inadvertently insult someone.
Are these phrases some sort of code speak?
Interesting, thanks for the clarifications. I don't see the benefit of a self-assessment of "special". Seems kinda' self-congratulatory, and contradictory to what I have always thought of as core American values: don't toot your own horn, be modest, play nicely with others; those sentiments. For me, the "we're special" is unbecoming and rather early adolescent behavior.
I've never heard the phrase "Obama apology tour" either. Given the arrogance of the US during the Bush years, and the impacts this had on our international relationships, seems to me that some humility and acknowledgment of missteps and mis-speaking are appropriate. I sure know that apologies go a long way towards mending fences when I inadvertently insult someone.
Are these phrases some sort of code speak?
I prefer a more confident style of leadership than that. How can you aspire to greatness if you don’t believe in the possibility, or worse feel the need to have that greatness validated by others? Ultimately world opininion is swayed more by decisive action than obsequity.
The “apology tour” term was all over the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere at the time.
I prefer a more confident style of leadership than that. How can you aspire to greatness if you don’t believe in the possibility, or worse feel the need to have that greatness validated by others? Ultimately world opininion is swayed more by decisive action than obsequity.
The “apology tour” term was all over the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere at the time.
Thanks... apparently my "elsewhere" isn't the WSJ & etc. ... I do appreciate knowing a bit more about your thinking.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.