What's your process?

[sweetnpetite]

I don't want to know who you voted for, but how you decide. (And not just for president)

Do you go with your gut?

Follow party lines?

Do extensive research? Compile charts?

Exesively read the newspaper? and watch CNN?

Base your decision on campain ads?

Check individual candidate's websites? or other sites like league of woman's voters? do you check non-partisan or partisan sites like NOW or NRA?

Do you watch the debates? do you take notes?

Do you go to events in your comunity?

Do you try to meet the candidates or at least see them live?

Do you go to Party events or fundraisers?

Do you write to candidates? Search the library for magazine interviews?

Do you just read whatever happens to be in your line of site, but not search beyond that?

------------

Ok, the point is there are just some examples that occured to me. I don't want a yes/no answer to each question, they are just there to get you thinking. I just want to know what kind of process you use to decide who to vote for, when you start it, and how long it takes you to place a firm decision. (Do you try to keep an open mind to the end, or do you try to decide as quiclky as possible so you can ignore political ads and last minute media stunts)

Ok, I think you get the point. I'll shut up now

http://www.gulker.com/photos/2003/i_voted.jpg

 

[Guest]

When I hear someone try to tell me why their candidate is the best choiuce and everyone else is stupid for supporting the other guy I put a check mark next to his name on my list of candidates. When a candidate reaches 10 check marks he is scratched off my list because I'm tired as fuck of hearing what a great guy the lying, thieving, backstabbing, corrupt sonovabitch is.

By election day I'm usually down to writing in "none of the above".

 

[BlackShanglan]

I research and listen, but not only to issues. My stance on issues tends to zig-zag party lines; I know that I will not find a candidate whose stance agrees with mine on all areas.

I listen to how candidates communicate as well as what they say. I am interested in logical consistancy, a sense that the candidate has scruples or ethical grounds from which s/he will not be swayed by fads, and a use of rhetoric and language that is forthright and avoids, as much as possible, hyperbole and meaningless phrases.

Basically, I'm a moderate George Orwell. Here's what he had to say about politics. I think everyone should be required to read this every year, and twice on election years.

If I simply cannot bear to vote for any of the major candidates, I vote third party. This is partly to let the two main parties know that I do vote and I do hate what they have put on the ballot, and partly because of the fact that, while no one is allowed to know for whom you vote, whether or not you voted is a matter of public record. If you don't vote, your demographic group gets fuck-all. After all, you're not going to vote your representatives out of office, are you?

Shanglan

 

[Boota]

I do a lot of research. Especially voting records and things like that. I seek out official public records, not just whatever some whack job with an agenda puts out. It's all out there, you just have to look for it.

When it comes to voting records I always check the nature of the vote. Say, candidate A voted down a bill that looks like a no brainer. The first thing his opponent does is to say, "Just look! He voted to send our troops to war wearing nothing but Speedo's and fuzzy bunny slippers!" Well, I look and see what else was attached to that bill that would have received a Yes vote otherwise. I usually find out that candidate A did in fact vote down the bill, but only because it guaranteed the right of prima nocta to his opponent. Or something like that.

In local elections I try to meet as many candidates as possible, as well as researching them, when it is applicable. At the local level you have a lot of rookies.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Say, candidate A voted down a bill that looks like a no brainer. The first thing his opponent does is to say, "Just look! He voted to send our troops to war wearing nothing but Speedo's and fuzzy bunny slippers!" Well, I look and see what else was attached to that bill that would have received a Yes vote otherwise. I usually find out that candidate A did in fact vote down the bill, but only because it guaranteed the right of prima nocta to his opponent. Or something like that.

I just love your examples

 

[LustyLovers]

We both go with our gut, and who & what we think is the best for our country.

 

[Boota]

Black Shanglan, I try to come across as politically astute as possible.

 

[razor_nut]

Well I've been searching just what what I believe is right for the past few years while under Bush. I had always been a liberal/left-wing thinker, but now that I'm voting for the first time. I needed to be sure what I wanted exactly in every subject. The more and more I found those answers for myself, the more I didn't like the Democrats and really hated the Republicans. The Democratic Socialists of America is where I found my political identity.
I live in a "battleground" state so for the longest time (up to about a week ago) I was going to vote for Kerry, thinking that I had to do what I could to get Bush out. Then I thought about how much would Kerry really be able to do as pres. over Bush? So I voted for Walt Brown and Mary Alice Herbert for pres and vice pres, the DSA nominees.
Most would say that I just wasted it, that my vote will count for squat. I say I voiced my opinion, telling the nation I don't want either of the jokers running the country. I know no change real change will come of my vote, but my mind has changed, and others can too.

 

[minsue]

I don't want to know who you voted for, but how you decide. (And not just for president)

Do you go with your gut? - Yup

Follow party lines? - More often than not

Do extensive research? Compile charts? - I dunno about extensive. Definitely no charts.

Exesively read the newspaper? and watch CNN? - Yes, no

Base your decision on campain ads? - Gawd no

Check individual candidate's websites? or other sites like league of woman's voters? do you check non-partisan or partisan sites like NOW or NRA? - For local candidates, yes to the first. No to the rest, regardless.

Do you watch the debates? do you take notes? - Yes, no

Do you go to events in your comunity? - No

Do you try to meet the candidates or at least see them live? - No

Do you go to Party events or fundraisers? - No

Do you write to candidates? Search the library for magazine interviews? - No, I write to current officeholders at times, but I've never thought to write to a candidate. I may have to do that in the future.

Do you just read whatever happens to be in your line of site, but not search beyond that? - Nope




For some of the offices, the most obvious being President, I find that little effort is needed in finding out about the candidates in order to make an informed opinion. I read the paper daily and listen to the news as I drive so by the time of the election, I've had more than enough of them. For local offices, I tend to do more research, both in local publications and online. That's one of the main reasons I vote by the mail in ballot - so I can take my time and do my research as I vote.

Gawd, I'm such a politics geek.

 

[BlackShanglan]

So I voted for Walt Brown and Mary Alice Herbert for pres and vice pres, the DSA nominees.
Most would say that I just wasted it, that my vote will count for squat. I say I voiced my opinion, telling the nation I don't want either of the jokers running the country. I know no change real change will come of my vote, but my mind has changed, and others can too.

I think your choice was wise. Last election I voted for Nadar. Yes, yes, thank you for the tomatoes and cabbages. I stand by the decision. Better four years of Bush than another twenty years of a two-party system where the only attempt at a platform is "the other guy sucks worse." I'd hoped that the Democrats would have gotten the message after being shafted by a smaller percentage than Nader got, but no - true to form, they are villifying the third party voters instead of fielding something worth voting for.

It's all right. I'm willing to do it until it sticks.

 

[razor_nut]

I think your choice was wise. Last election I voted for Nadar. Yes, yes, thank you for the tomatoes and cabbages. I stand by the decision. Better four years of Bush than another twenty years of a two-party system where the only attempt at a platform is "the other guy sucks worse." I'd hoped that the Democrats would have gotten the message after being shafted by a smaller percentage than Nader got, but no - true to form, they are villifying the third party voters instead of fielding something worth voting for.

It's all right. I'm willing to do it until it sticks.

You have no idea how gratifying it is to read that. It does sicken me how the two partyies are tooling with Nader to influence the race, Dems fighting him tooth and nail to get his votes, GOP funding and covertly helping him knowing it will likely help them win. You know that if there was a right-wing conservative out there "stealing" votes from Republicans the same thing would be happening, just on opposite sides.

It's just scary thinking of someone more right-wing than the Bush administration. *shudders*

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Just great.

When Ashcroft shuts down Lit, go get the Social Democrats and Ralph Nadir to help you out.

---dr.M.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Just great.

When Ashcroft shuts down Lit, go get the Social Democrats and Ralph Nadir to help you out.

---dr.M.

that bears repeating.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There is no progress without sacrifice. If it takes swallowing four years of no Literotica (horrible though the thought truly is) to secure a future in which I don't have to constantly vote for the lesser of two evils - so be it.

No one said social progress was easy. I'm willing to sacrifice for what I believe in. Although frankly I would much rather have seen the Dems field something worth voting for, they chose not to. I will not continue to reward them for that failure.