Politics -- do you have a favored side?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...

While I'm a registered Democrat living in the Southern US, I have never and- hopefully- will never vote straight-ticket. I vote my conscience, and poll as a centrist. IOW, you will find me supporting liberal, conservative and moderate positions.

I try to look beyond the surface of issues to see deeper, long-range implications- ideally, from more than just my point of view. And I can accept that certain things I feel strongly about- like the death penalty- may not be viewed the same way by rational people, and that the "best way forward" for society as a whole may involve compromise instead of a "win" for one side or another.

 

[Bullgrit]

Some politicians sound and act the same in every public presentation. Those who like that, say, "He's honestly being himself." Those who dislike that, say "He's boring and stale."

Some politicians adapt their public presentation to their immediate audience. Those who like that, say, "He makes people feel he's just like them." Those who dislike that, say, "He's fake and pandering."

Have you ever taken a dislike to a politician, whose platform you may actually agree with, because they were "boring and stale"? Have you ever taken a liking to a politician, whose platform you may actually disagree with, because they made you feel he's just like you?

Bullgrit

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nope and nope.

 

[Umbran]

How about you? Do you have a favored political party? Do you consider yourself a Republican/Democrat/Conservative/Liberal?

Nope. I do not have any party loyalties. I would prefer we reduce emphasis on "party" - I'm not a big fan of our current voting systems (we might do well to use some instant runoff voting, for example), campaign financing, and management of electoral districts. However, our current methods are designed to help *parties*, so no party really has a stake in changing them, which makes it difficult to get them changed.

I have things that are important to me. I worry about who is going to work for, or against, what I care about, and I will vote for, or against, to suit. On the topics that move me, I educate myself, and do not simply accept what candidates state.

I will admit that one of the major parties has, of late, has held several positions that I not just disagree with, but find outright reprehensible. No local candidate on my ballot has strongly stood against their party on those items - verified on their voting records, when available - such that I really cannot vote for them.

 

[Janx]

I liked economics in college. I don't vote. Neither do economists.
http://freakonomics.com/2007/11/06/freak-tv-why-economists-dont-vote/

I could tell you what I really think of the political parties (and I did, but deleted it), but it's just not worth it. Everybody already agrees with me or will absolutely not be swayed by my views.

 

[Kramodlog]

I guess I take the long view, there. If you find yourself in a position of having to vote for evil, the thing to do is work toward changing that dynamic in the future.

Claims that low voter-turnout equates to political apathy have always struck me as unrepresentative of reality. I've even heard it said, on multiple occasions, that "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain." However, I think a large chunk of non-voting populace are voting--for none of the above (and possibly for a change of system). It could better be said, "if complaining is the only meaningful voice that you have, you have a right not to vote."

(And, for those who would counter by saying, "you can always write someone in," I respond: How would that affect anything at all? Who would even know? At least voter-turnout is a statistic that gets talked about every time.)

The problem is that some major political parties want low voter turn outs, because that helps them win elections. They prefere to motivate their base, who is often more radial, to go vote rather than appealling to the general public. It means that their base, who is small in numbers, will still out number those unaffiliate few who do take the time to vote.

So those who do not vote are contributing to the radicalization of politicians and their platforms, which turns off a lot of voters. It is a bad cycle.

 

[billd91]

Have you ever taken a dislike to a politician, whose platform you may actually agree with, because they were "boring and stale"? Have you ever taken a liking to a politician, whose platform you may actually disagree with, because they made you feel he's just like you?

I have been disappointed by politicians who have good positions but lack the political schmooze to pull it off in a national primary campaign, sure. And I have admired the ease with with slicker politicians got their way. But it's generally been more of a case of lamenting that I can't get both of those factors together into a super-candidate.

I have been turned off a politician because, despite having generally good positions, I haven't liked the tone or strategy of their campaign. Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008, in contrast to that of Barack Obama, put me firmly in the Obama camp. This time around, she's going to have to work very hard with her positions and campaign's tone to sway my interest in Bernie Sanders as candidate for the Democratic Party.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I will admit that one of the major parties has, of late, has held several positions that I not just disagree with, but find outright reprehensible. No local candidate on my ballot has strongly stood against their party on those items - verified on their voting records, when available - such that I really cannot vote for them.

I suspect you and I are thinking of the same group when I read this...

I liked economics in college. I don't vote. Neither do economists.
http://freakonomics.com/2007/11/06/freak-tv-why-economists-dont-vote/

Hmm.

FWIW, I use my Econ degree as one of my major tools in informing my voting decisions. And I ALWAYS vote- I think may have missed all of one voting opportunity in the past 29 years, and that was due to a series of (then) unavoidable events.

 

[Janx]

FWIW, I use my Econ degree as one of my major tools in informing my voting decisions. And I ALWAYS vote- I think may have missed all of one voting opportunity in the past 29 years, and that was due to a series of (then) unavoidable events.

that is probably why political parties exist. 2 people have allegedly the same info, and come up with radically different views.

I'd have more impact swaying people to my way of thinking than actually voting myself. Since I haven't found a way to do that, there are better uses of my time.

 

[Umbran]

I liked economics in college. I don't vote. Neither do economists.
http://freakonomics.com/2007/11/06/freak-tv-why-economists-dont-vote/

That means economists are forgetting their statistics and not looking at polling laws.

Polling is a process with a sampling error. Frequently, polling laws are cognizant of this, forcing recounts and other nonsense when the margin of difference between candidates is too small. So, I am not aiming to be the one vote that counts. My goal is to help drive the margin between the candidates high enough that nobody has a question of the result. So, I don't want to be "the one". I want to be on of the thousands (or, for a Presidential campaign, perhaps millions) that make the margin large.

Moreover, the "no payoff" would seem to be focused a bit too much on the immediate dollar payoff. An elected official is in office for years, and may make decisions that cost me thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, or even cost my life! The potential cost of having the wrong candidate in office may be very large, in the long term, as compared to the relatively small effort of going to the polls. My individual input on that result may be small, but so is the typical effort required to get to the polls.

Some folks have a hard time getting to the polls - I daresay that those are exactly the people who are least capable of shouldering the costs of having the wrong candidate in office...