General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Have Never Been a Single Issue Voter
I have a number of issues that are very important to me, and that I want to go in specific directions. Not every politician who runs for office in jurisdictions where I vote supports my opinion on all of those issues. It happens every election. And yet, I make a choice and go to the polling place to cast my ballot.
In fact, once the primaries are over, I support the Democratic candidate in every race that will be on the ballot, even if that Democratic candidate disagrees with me on some issues. I support Democratic candidates in many ways, but mostly through campaigning and GOTV activism. My goal is always to turn out as many Democratic voters as possible in my own area.
Why do I support Democratic candidates who may disagree with me on issues I consider important? The reason is simple. While a Democratic candidate may not feel as I do about some issues, the equivalent Republican candidate almost always disagrees with my position on EVERY issue I consider important. Since either the Democrat or the Republican candidate will win in each race, my choice is simple.
Is this electing the "lesser of two evils?" No, not at all. It is voting and campaigning for the candidate who supports my opinion on most of the issues that are important to me. I do not expect that anyone will agree with me on every position I hold. The only way I ever expect to elect someone like that would be if I voted for myself, and I'm not planning to run for any office.
For each candidate for every office for which I will vote, I look at the candidates' positions on issues. Never in my entire life has any Republican candidate supported even a small fraction of the issues I support. In every case, the Democratic candidate has supported the majority of the issues I support. I cannot demand more than that in this society, unless I'm willing to run myself.
So, I will continue to look at issues each candidate supports and select the one with a chance to win who supports more issues important to me than the other candidate. I can predict with almost absolute certainty that the candidate I will vote for will be the Democratic candidate.
Once elected, that candidate will hear from me, encouraging support for issues important to me. Always.
markiv
(1,489 posts)I didnt understand single issue voters until they demolished my livelyhood by bringing back indentured servitude with H-1b visas
Doesnt mean I'm a single issue voter now, just means that i understand if an issue is your survival, it can rise above all others
your opening sentence defines the difference between you and single issue voters
'I have a number of issues that are very important to me'
for some people, their personal situation happens to be different, that one issue, in reality, towers above all others
one should vote for what's best for their country, but one is NEVER obligated to vote aginst their own survival, because if they were, then we would have a society where groups are thrown to the wolves, which isnt the best for the country
that's why everyone has a vote
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Unfortunately, sometimes that candidate is not a Democrat and certainly not a Republican.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)And who did win, if your candidate didn't?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Of course, I've only voted "for" a presidential candidate 4 times rather than following the "lesser than 2 evils" prescription. Note: McGovern was the only Democratic candidate I actually voted for. The other "for" candidates were 3rd party. But, Carter and Clinton (nose holding exercises) won.
But, elections, all of them, would have turned out the same no matter how I voted.
How many of your candidates won...and how would they have turned out if you had voted differently?
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)However, in some, it really made a difference. Al Franken, for example, won with only a 700 vote margin. Very, very close. That's one example. Back in California, the congress member I voted for won by a very slim margin as well. In the case of Al Franken, he is very close to my set of beliefs on issues. In California, that congresswoman had a few issues with which I disagreed at the time of her original election. Since then, she has become closer to my opinion on some.
Here in Minnesota, I'm fortunate to live in a Democratic district, so Democrats win handily within the district. However, our Democratic Governor won the last election by a pretty small margin. I do not agree with all of his positions, but I disagree with all of his opponents positions. There were third party candidates. None gained enough votes to even come close. So, following my policy, I voted for the Democrat.
Perhaps you are lucky where you live, and your third-party votes really don't matter. Someday, though, one will matter. Make your choices carefully, please.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)In the meantime, I'll just keep voting for the most progressive candidate on the ballot. It hasn't happened yet, and probably won't in my lifetime, but at some point the Democratic may wake up and appeal to the left instead of blaming them for not voting for them and some of their policies.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)that decides elections. When elections are close, a few votes can make the difference. We're all just individual members of the electorate. Does your vote count? You don't think so, perhaps, but it does.
What counts even more is your participation beyond your vote. That really matters. So, no, my individual vote for Al Franken didn't win the election for him, but my campaigning for him played a role in his victory. I don't just vote. I work to get others to go and vote, too, through campaigning and GOTV activism.
If I just voted, I might feel as you do, but that's not where my participation ends.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which in presidential politics hasn't happened since McGovern, who I did work for even though my first choice was McCarthy.
Hell, I'll even hold my nose for halfway decent candidates with halfway decent policies. But, I'm not wasting my vote on 3rd Way/neolib hawks.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Good luck.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MineralMan
(146,189 posts)system of government. We have those pesky elections all the time, and they determine who decides the details of how it all operates. I guarantee you aren't going to be able to change that system, so working within it or cynicism are the only two options.
You've chosen cynicism, and I can understand that. However, the system remains, and will remain. So, I'm trying to make it work as well as possible. Pragmatism? Absolutely. I live in the real world, where idealism does not rule. It will not rule anytime soon, I guarantee. Pragmatism has brought benefits. I'm not exactly sure what cynicism has brought. Nothing I can notice, though, I'm sure.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Jesus as a Jewish Cynic
Some historians have noted the similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus and those of the Cynics. Some scholars have argued that the Q document, a hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, has strong similarities with the teachings of the Cynics.[68][69] Scholars on the quest for the historical Jesus, such as Burton L. Mack and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, have argued that 1st century CE Galilee was a world in which Hellenistic ideas collided with Jewish thought and traditions. The city of Gadara, only a day's walk from Nazareth, was particularly notable as a centre of Cynic philosophy,[70] and Mack has described Jesus as a "rather normal Cynic-type figure."[71] For Crossan, Jesus was more like a Cynic sage from an Hellenistic Jewish tradition than either a Christ who would die as a substitute for sinners or a Messiah who wanted to establish an independent Jewish state of Israel.[72] Other scholars doubt that Jesus was deeply influenced by the Cynics, and see the Jewish prophetic tradition as of much greater importance.[73]
Cynic influences on early Christianity
Many of the ascetic practices of Cynicism may have been adopted by early Christians, and Christians often employed the same rhetorical methods as the Cynics.[74] Some Cynics were actually martyred for speaking out against the authorities.[75] One Cynic, Peregrinus Proteus, lived for a time as a Christian before converting to Cynicism,[76] whereas in the 4th century, Maximus of Alexandria, although a Christian, was also called a Cynic because of his ascetic lifestyle. Christian writers would often praise Cynic poverty,[77] although they scorned Cynic shamelessness: Augustine stating that they had, "in violation of the modest instincts of men, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs."[78] The ascetic orders of Christianity also had direct connection with the Cynics, as can be seen in the wandering mendicant monks of the early church who in outward appearance, and in many of their practices were little different from the Cynics of an earlier age.[79]
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)I will defend pragmatism in politics. It's essential.
BumRushDaShow
(127,251 posts)Very well thought-out post and I agree.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Fairness, that's my issue. And at least up until recent years it was the Democratic Party who delivered on it for me. Now, not so much.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Really?
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)K&R
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)I live in a country that is divided. So, I expect not to be agreed with. I expect people to fight against what I am fighting for. I take each small victory as evidence that I'm on the correct side, and keep right on trying.
I live in a place where the person living next door may completely disagree with me. That person also has the right to vote and to campaign for his or her issues. I don't want that to change. I think I'm right in supporting the issues I support, so I continue to do so. I don't expect to win every time, nor do I expect every candidate I vote for to agree with me all the time, either.
Living in a representative democratic republic is always an exercise in pragmatism.