Why split your vote?

[SEX_VAMPYRE]

I want to start a debate on why voters split their votes. Why would you vote for a President of one party and then vote for Senators and Congressmen of opposing parties then wonder why there is gridlock? For over 40 years the Democrats had control of Congress.Why are voters opposed to giving Republicans the same opportunity?
I believe voting for a third party candidate only throws your vote away

 

[lavender]

 

[clive]

I suppose it might be that the President is more of an individual figure so people vote for the candidate rather than the party of which they are a part.

Is it really that long since the Republicans had control of Congress ? I doubt many of us in England would be aware of that

 

[Laurel]

I want to start a debate on why voters split their votes. Why would you vote for a President of one party and then vote for Senators and Congressmen of opposing parties then wonder why there is gridlock? For over 40 years the Democrats had control of Congress.Why are voters opposed to giving Republicans the same opportunity?
I believe voting for a third party candidate only throws your vote away

Because politics is not a football match. "Rah rah my team rules! Yay Team!" I vote for the candidate who holds the same views on the issues as I do, and who I trust to stand up for those issues when it counts. Believing that all Dems are evil and all Repubs are saints - or vice versa - may simplify your world, but I prefer critical thinking and taking the time to research the candidates rather than following a party, sheep-like.

 

[modest mouse]

Sex Vamp,

Some of us actually vote for the person, for their ideals, for their policies, for their integrity, for their past success. Limiting yourself to two (or as you would likely prefer; one) parties is embracing a system which has turned in onitself and prevents new ideas and fresh thought from having the chance to be tested. Unfortunatley the way of the Federal Govt. has trickled down to the State institutions.

If you think one should vote for candidates from a singular party and that voting for third party is throwing your vote away then you probably deserve exactly what you get.

 

[JazzManJim]

I believe voting for a third party candidate only throws your vote away

A lot of people believe the same thing.

they're wrong, but it's a persistent belief.

I vote third party for President in general. For my congressman, I vote for those I believ can represent me and my neighbors the best. This past election, that person happened to be a raving Liberal Democrat whose politics disgust me. But he always looks out for his constituents and his district. He pays attention to us and does his best to ensure that, within his power, our governmental needs are met.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I vote for the person based entirely on how closely their platform and integrity matches what I idealize in politicians.

I don't vote ticket. I think that voting ticket is a dangerous way to vote because it doesn't foster careful thought and investigation about the candidates.

 

[sexy-girl]

i agree with laurel but also sometimes your vote can be important even if that party loses ... i would vote for green party in local elections as a protest vote to say to the goverment that green issues are important to me ... even if they lose other partys notice how much of a share of the vote they get

in the general elections i'd probably vote differently either for labour or lib dems because i hate the tory party

 

[penguindance]

 

[lobito]

in the U.S., it doesn't seem to matter if you vote the way I do, for the individual, or for a party, there are far too many corrupt politicians, who are in it for their own good, rather than their "constituants" (sp?).

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I want to start a debate on why voters split their votes. Why would you vote for a President of one party and then vote for Senators and Congressmen of opposing parties then wonder why there is gridlock? For over 40 years the Democrats had control of Congress.Why are voters opposed to giving Republicans the same opportunity?

I don't split my vote, and the idea of doing it is somewhat stupid - it does sometimes accomplish something good though; gridlock - I like it when the government can't pass a bunch of new laws, then they do much less harm than when either party is in power.

I believe voting for a third party candidate only throws your vote away

That is a different thing altogether than splitting your vote. I vote my conscience and vote for whom I actually want in the office, not the lesser of two evils. It is not like my vote for president counted as much more than a protest vote anyway; my state always goes for the demo presidential candidate anyway.

 

[penguindance]

 

[Laurel]

i agree with laurel but also sometimes your vote can be important even if that party loses ... i would vote for green party in local elections as a protest vote to say to the goverment that green issues are important to me ... even if they lose other partys notice how much of a share of the vote they get

in the general elections i'd probably vote differently either for labour or lib dems because i hate the tory party

True. I'd never vote Green because I don't agree with many of their positions - salary caps, etc. I also had major problems with a supposedly liberal Presidential candidate taking money from hardcore conservative groups, who sought to split the liberal vote. If I'm going to vote for a third party, it'll be one that 1) represents my interests, and 2) is MORE ethical than the two, not a carbon copy.

The Greenies were more concerned with getting money for the 2008 campaign than they were about the issues. Nader spent - and still spends - more time attacking Gore than attacking Bush, even though he & Gore had more in common than he & Bush (supposedly).

I don't think in theory that voting a third party is throwing away your vote if you strongly believe in that third party. However, voting a third party just to not vote Dem or Repub is silly if you actually care about the issues. Personally, I'd rather the true progressives like Wellstone and Kerry take the Democratic party back from quasi-conservatives like Gore and Daschle and Lieberman. Taking back the Democratic party and using its power to push progressive issues would be much more effective than trying to build a third party.

 

[lobito]

p_l_s...

not meant to be depressing, just semi-realistic. My taxes keep going up, but not much is being done for me, that I can tell. Hell the police in our city are telling us that they aren't hear to keep us safe, that their job is some other bullshit. I don't get it anymore.

I guess at least if I do end up moving back to Central America, I'll already know that no matter who I vote for, they will be as corrupt as the U.S. Politicians are.

 

[patient1]

Lots of reasons-

1) the Libertarian Party doesn't always have a full slate of candidates.

2) I don't vote for blatantly corrupt politicians, even if I support their views- they'll sell me out overnight, the way Bill Clinton sold out his unions on NAFTA.

3) I like the idea of gridlocking in a time of peace & prosperity. I think a powerful central government under these circumstances is the greatest threat to my way of life.

4) A vote is only thrown away when you don't vote your conscience. According to exit poles, there was one person that wanted to vote for Perot for each one that did. Had they voted their conscience, Perot would have won the election & upset the balance of corruption. Even so, both parties changed their deficit spending ways for years.

 

[SEX_VAMPYRE]

Re: Re: Why split your vote?

I don't split my vote, and the idea of doing it is somewhat stupid - it does sometimes accomplish something good though; gridlock - I like it when the government can't pass a bunch of new laws, then they do much less harm than when either party is in power.




That's my point in starting the thread.
Voters complain that NOTHING get's done in Washington or when THEIR issues are not addressed. It's partially because they split their vote.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Why split your vote?

Voters complain that NOTHING get's done in Washington or when THEIR issues are not addressed. It's partially because they split their vote.

I rejoice when nothing gets done in WA DC - it is usually better than when they actually do accomplish something.

Reading some of the other posts (which I should have done first ), I see I may have given the wrong impression when I said I do not split my vote. From the perspective of the opening post, I took the context to be one of purposely voting for candidates of a party opposing the presidential candidate I vote for, for the sole purpose of not giving too much power to any one party. Some (many) people do this - I do not.

However, like others, I will vote for whatever candidate I like regardless of party, but that is never a democrat - I have yet to see one from my state where the opposing candidate was not the lesser of the two evils.

JMJ, I do not vote for a candidate based on what largesse he will grant my district - I think that this is a bad thing to do; the candidate is essentially buying your vote, and you are bribing him/her rather than voting for a leader that will do what is best for the country rather than bringing home pork barrel projects and other vote buying schemes. This is why incumbents stay in office and nothing changes.

 

[patient1]

True. I'd never vote Green because I don't agree with many of their positions - salary caps, etc. I also had major problems with a supposedly liberal Presidential candidate taking money from hardcore conservative groups, who sought to split the liberal vote. If I'm going to vote for a third party, it'll be one that 1) represents my interests, and 2) is MORE ethical than the two, not a carbon copy.

The Greenies were more concerned with getting money for the 2008 campaign than they were about the issues. Nader spent - and still spends - more time attacking Gore than attacking Bush, even though he & Gore had more in common than he & Bush (supposedly).

I don't think in theory that voting a third party is throwing away your vote if you strongly believe in that third party. However, voting a third party just to not vote Dem or Repub is silly if you actually care about the issues. Personally, I'd rather the true progressives like Wellstone and Kerry take the Democratic party back from quasi-conservatives like Gore and Daschle and Lieberman. Taking back the Democratic party and using its power to push progressive issues would be much more effective than trying to build a third party.

I voted for Nader, because I thought he was beholden to fewer lobbyists. He was the only one openly discussing where his money came from. I don't trust a candidate who is too ashamed of his backers to talk about them in public, but that's just me.

As I recall, there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the major party candidates in the debates with regard to what they said their positions were on the issues, aside from the speed at which they wanted to reform Social Security. Maybe they had the same opinion pollsters. The presidential candidate gets to appoint party chairmen & control the platform committees.

I see more similarities than differences in the party agendas, even if there are differences in the rank & file.

I'd best quit before I give away too much about my real life.