What do you think about when you vote? The purpose of this thread is to allow people to answer this question, and discuss answers:
A litmus test means, in other words, that you would not vote for a person or party, even if he agreed with you on everything else, if he did not pass the litmus test. Let's assume for the sake of the thread that we are dealing with realistic alternatives, it is a lot more likely that someone would vote for an undesirable candidate if Hitler was the alternative than if an ordinary slightly more undesirable candidate were the alternative. Considering the ordinary nature of politics, do you have any litmus test issues, that you would never vote for a person or party who disagreed with you on them?
Whether you have litmus tests or not, what other important issues do you think about when voting, and in what order? How do you decide what person or party to vote for?
Do you accept "Lesser of two (Or more) evils" no matter what? Or are you willing in some cases to make a vote that is very likely to be useless in order to make a point?
For me, foreign policy is virtually a litmus test. Not that I think the candidate has to agree with every jot and tittle of my beliefs thereof, but I could never ethically justify voting for a candidate who was likely to put us into another foreign war, no matter what his other positions were. If all candidates on the ballot were in favor of hawkish foreign policy, I'd either write in a candidate or refuse to vote.
Opposition to entitements (redistribution of wealth in general, but especially entitlements due to the extreme nature of the cost, deceit, and upward redistribution involved), opposition to abortion (In all cases except the life of the mother being ideal, but accepting it for cases of rape and incest is still better than being pro-choice across the board), support for a balanced budget and lower taxes, and an opposition to the drug wars are also very important to me, but none of these would qualify as litmus test issues. While it is impossible that I would ever vote for anyone who disagreed with me on all of these issues, there are some cases where I would vote for someone who disagreed with me on some of them, particularly a major party candidate (Who I expect a little less from, since my vote is a lot more useful in that case) with a very hawkish opponent. Nevertheless, it is likely that I would vote third party rather than vote for a candidate who disagreed with my views on these issues unless I lived in a swing state or was in some other situation where my vote was likely to influence the outcome.
For some pro-life people, or even for pro-choice people who know I am pro-life, it might be surprising that I don't place this issue in the top area of priority. Laurence Vance more or less explains my reasoning. In addition, I would add that I believe it is even worse to deliberately (And unjustifiably) kill than it is to stand by and do nothing while someone is (again, unjustifiably) killed. Even though neither is a trivial issue, I would prioritize the war issue over the abortion issue for this reason as well. And finally, I believe that pretty much every problem in our country is connected to our foreign policy, far more directly than that of abortion.
What principles do you take into consideration when you vote? What are your litmus tests when choosing a person or party? What other important issues do you think through?
A litmus test means, in other words, that you would not vote for a person or party, even if he agreed with you on everything else, if he did not pass the litmus test. Let's assume for the sake of the thread that we are dealing with realistic alternatives, it is a lot more likely that someone would vote for an undesirable candidate if Hitler was the alternative than if an ordinary slightly more undesirable candidate were the alternative. Considering the ordinary nature of politics, do you have any litmus test issues, that you would never vote for a person or party who disagreed with you on them?
Whether you have litmus tests or not, what other important issues do you think about when voting, and in what order? How do you decide what person or party to vote for?
Do you accept "Lesser of two (Or more) evils" no matter what? Or are you willing in some cases to make a vote that is very likely to be useless in order to make a point?
For me, foreign policy is virtually a litmus test. Not that I think the candidate has to agree with every jot and tittle of my beliefs thereof, but I could never ethically justify voting for a candidate who was likely to put us into another foreign war, no matter what his other positions were. If all candidates on the ballot were in favor of hawkish foreign policy, I'd either write in a candidate or refuse to vote.
Opposition to entitements (redistribution of wealth in general, but especially entitlements due to the extreme nature of the cost, deceit, and upward redistribution involved), opposition to abortion (In all cases except the life of the mother being ideal, but accepting it for cases of rape and incest is still better than being pro-choice across the board), support for a balanced budget and lower taxes, and an opposition to the drug wars are also very important to me, but none of these would qualify as litmus test issues. While it is impossible that I would ever vote for anyone who disagreed with me on all of these issues, there are some cases where I would vote for someone who disagreed with me on some of them, particularly a major party candidate (Who I expect a little less from, since my vote is a lot more useful in that case) with a very hawkish opponent. Nevertheless, it is likely that I would vote third party rather than vote for a candidate who disagreed with my views on these issues unless I lived in a swing state or was in some other situation where my vote was likely to influence the outcome.
For some pro-life people, or even for pro-choice people who know I am pro-life, it might be surprising that I don't place this issue in the top area of priority. Laurence Vance more or less explains my reasoning. In addition, I would add that I believe it is even worse to deliberately (And unjustifiably) kill than it is to stand by and do nothing while someone is (again, unjustifiably) killed. Even though neither is a trivial issue, I would prioritize the war issue over the abortion issue for this reason as well. And finally, I believe that pretty much every problem in our country is connected to our foreign policy, far more directly than that of abortion.
What principles do you take into consideration when you vote? What are your litmus tests when choosing a person or party? What other important issues do you think through?
