posted
Hello Hatrack! I posted here during the summer of 2007 under a different alias, but then I went away from the internet for a few weeks and never got back to posting. Recently, I've been lurking again and decided to give posting another shot.
Anyways, this will be my first time voting in an election, but I dislike both major candidates! I looked into some of the smaller party candidates, but they all seem like insane nutso's who try to be as radical as possible just to get a few votes.
I think my main problem with politics is the rigid party system. It frustrates me that so many people blindy follow the "Democrats" or "Republicans" on every single issue. I take each issue one by one, and as a result I do not completely agree with any candidate or party.
Basically, how do all of you independents prioritize the issues to decide who you are going to vote for? Not looking for a partisan answer here. Thanks
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself an independent, though I tend to prefer the Democratic candidates. For me, it's just a matter of weighing the platform positions of each party, weighing each individual position by how closely that position matches my own, how likely I think the current party candidate is to affect changes according to that position, and how important that position is relative to the other positions.
For instance, I'm pro-choice, but that is not a point against McCain, because I don't consider him to be very strongly against abortion rights and wouldn't expect him to agreessively pursue political action on that issue.
Similarly I am pro-gun rights, but don't consider Obama a threat to gun rights despite the Democrats generally being on the other side of that issue.
posted
Yeah I fall similar to MattP. I know a lot of people from hearing me assume that I'm a hardcore Democrat, but I'm not. I happily call myself a liberal, but there are a range of issues that I disagree with today's liberals on, including abortion, as I'm relatively anti-abortion (I hate the terms pro-choice and pro-life), but abortion ranks rather low on my scale of importance.
My big issues at the moment are energy (and through this, the environment) and healthcare. I think the Democrats are on the right side of those three issues and are very likely to really get something good done on them, so I'm voting Democratic this year. I don't like Obama on abortion, on the DC handgun ban, or his lack of specificity on ANYTHING in the budget he'd cut, or for that matter his positions on clean coal and ethanol. And I don't like McCain on, well, more or less everything.
I don't vote third party because I actually want my vote to go towards something. Give me a live one and I'd consider it. In the 220 some odd years of electoral American history, the only major third party candidates to come close to taking, or for that matter that actually took the White House were major national figures before they ever ran. If someone like Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Chuck Hagel, or Lincoln Chafee want to break off and form their own party with a new platform that more closely identifies with my ideals, I'd drop the Democrats in a heartbeat.
Until then, I pick my top two or three issues, make sure the guy I'm voting for isn't Satan reincarnated and hope my issues actually get dealt with. There are Republicans I would vote for, but there aren't any on my own ballot this time around.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to be a fiscal liberal and a social conservative. That means that if I want a candidate who will fix the economy, I can count on disagreeing with him/her on issues like abortion. But if I decide to vote according to my moral values, I get someone whose fiscal policies I think are ineffective or downright unfair. I'm having a terrible time deciding who to vote for. I think that, because of the faltering economy, I may vote democrat (Obama) this time. If only he hadn't said that thing about the pro-choice act being his first priority once he's president. *sigh*
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I recall correctly the statement "the first thing I'd do is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" was in response to a question about abortion. So it isn't that being pro-choice is his first priority as President, as it has sometimes been spun, but that his first priority with regards to being pro-choice is that particular bit of legislation. And then he followed it up with a lot about preventing unwanted pregnancies, including teaching teens that sex is a sacred responsibility, not something to be engaged in indiscriminantly.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, gee. I'll try to put this into words, and hopefully see if it is an agreeable sentiment.
I used to be independent. Today I'm essentially democrat in all ways because I find them to be on the productive side of ideas on how to manage and reform american policy, and I feel honestly that the G.O.P. is in need of serious reform before I can trust them with managing policy or composing themselves more intelligently or productively than the Bush Administration and the 110th congress, who have come to represent benchmarks on the composure and values of the Republican party.
There's a few things that I break with involving liberal ideology, but these are comparatively trivial issues like gun regulation. The big stuff is entirely in their favor; they aren't clinging to a failed actuarial model of healthcare, they aren't enamored with terrible economic ideas, they're actually — suprisingly — more likely to reign in spending than the erstwhile 'party of small government,' they're less inclined to a Rule By Cabal model of legislative shutout, they don't support an extralegal war against terrorism which has resulted in a suspension of habeus corpus and turned us into a country that tortures and holds suspects indefinitely without trial. They also aren't tied to a 'core' voter base that brazenly wants a more theological model for government, including prayer in schools and a federal attempt to weaken evolutionary theory and comprehensive sex education by 'offering' (mandating) terrible alternatives.
Oh, and they also have by far the superior ticket for the presidency. McCain threw away any support I could have ever had for him (and I assure you, I liked the dude a lot) when he picked up Palin as a running mate. It's all hapless.
Fortunately this is not a viewpoint I often have to, you know, defend. Most fair-minded people (lol, look at my prejudicial generalization) in the country have pretty much been pulled to the Democratic side simply because the Republican party has betrayed their trust.
"Change" is the operative watchword and it was frankly genius for Obama to capitalize on it. We want change. The Republicans are broaching upon the lowest approval ratings in all of recorded American politics, and they frankly deserve it. I am a democrat because we are well in need of Option B. Politics of equivalency are stupid. One of the political parties is better than the other. I am voting for it.
All that said, I dream of being able to be an independent again. The marketplace of ideas probably works best with competition, otherwise you just end up voting for the less indolent party. The republicans need to regroup and reform so that the liberals don't probably end up just as complacent.
I guess you could label me a 'hopeful future independent' who has assumed a side out of presumed necessity.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself an independent because I have seen blind allegiance to party keep people from seeing the truth about both parties. For example, there are a lot of "fiscal conservatives" out there who don't seem to get that the Republicans no longer deserve that title.
I used to lean more Republican and now, due to my utter disgust with the way that party has handled power over the past 8 years, I am leaning Democrat. I'm even starting to see eye to eye with the party on an increasing number of issues but I will never call myself a Democrat because they could just as easily turn bad. When they do, I won't support them because of what they should be or used to be, which is what I see many hard-core Republicans doing today.
Here is my suggestion:
1. Make a list of the issues that are most important to you, in order.
2. Make a list of the issues that the president has the most power to effect, in order.
3. By candidate and by issue, rank how good or bad you think they would be, taking into account how important it is to you and how much power they have over it.
For example, here's my issues list:
1. Civil Liberties 2. Environment 3. Economy 4. Foreign Policy 5. Health Care 6. Personal
The president has the power to effect:
1. Foreign Policy (it's really his top job) 2. Civil Liberties 3. Environment 4-5. About equal on economy and health care 6. Personal
Now, here's how the candidates stack up:
McCain
1. Civil Liberties -- the Republican party has done a poor job of this over the past 8 years though McCain personally has spoken out against certain specific atrocities like torture. I expect not much to change in this respect.
0
2. Environment -- Off shore drilling is not a sound way to handle the energy crisis, either in the short run or the long run. I don't like his connections to oil companies. They seem like a conflict of interests.
-1
3. Economy -- Tax breaks for rich people and for companies that ship jobs overseas are bad ideas IMO
-1
4. Foreign Policy -- Unwilling to have diplomatic talks with foreign leaders. Still unwilling to leave Iraq.
-1
5. Health Care -- I think he would cost my family a fortune.
-1
6. Personal -- I think he has made poor choices in terms of his advisors and his VP nomination. I think he has bent to the will of the Republican party and sacrificed his own principles.
-1
Obama:
1. Civil Liberties -- Unfortunately, he also voted for the patriot act. He's also anti-gun. I think things wouldn't change much here underh im either.
0
2. Environment -- I think he has good ideas and a real chance at making a difference here.
+2
3. Economy -- I don't like his tax cut plan either. I'm not convinced tax cuts and more government spending are what we need right now at all. However, he does want to repeal those stupid laws that give tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas, so...
0
4. Foreign Policy -- He has little hands on experience but plenty of good ideas and seems to be well liked in foreign countries.
0
5. Health Care -- I'm not sure what I think of his plan. I mostly rank health care as an issue because I hate McCain's plan. Sometimes I'm glad Obama's plan won't effect my life and sometimes I think it's not going far enough. So, until I make up my mind...
0
6. Personal -- very charismatic and presidential. Seems to surround himself with good people and actually listen.
+1
So, all in all it's +3 Obama vs. -5 McCain. It's really not a hard choice for me. But if it's a hard choice for you, I'd do something of the kind. :=)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for all the help guys. As a class of 2012 college graduate, this election will have a huge impact on how easily I can get a job coming out of school, so I think I'll mainly focus on that.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily for you, the President has extremely little influence on the job market. He's behind (in no particular order) various members of the Fed, lots of people in the private sector, and some of the more powerful Senators, among other people, in ability to affect the job market.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Basically, how do all of you independents prioritize the issues to decide who you are going to vote for? Not looking for a partisan answer here.
I expect my representatives in government to know better about the issues than I do. After all, I'm not able to keep up with all the small but potentially important details that impact the myriad of issues that come up. I don't have access to the experts and data that the government often has. That's one of the primary reasons why we have a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy - it is the job of representatives to make informed decisions on the issues that average citizens lack the time or knowledge to make themselves. (Plus, the issues of the next 2 or 4 years may differ completely from the one's I'd think are important right now.)
So, that means that the only real "issue" that I look for is good judgement in a candidate. How does he or she make decisions? When do they follow their party line and when don't they? What are their values?
And that also means that their reasoning is just as important as their positions. For instance, someone who opposed the bailout because they think it wouldn't solve the credit crisis is very different from someone who opposed the bailout because they think the rich should be punished.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some independents vote to keep the party controlling the White House different than the party controlling Congress. The theory is that when the parties are forced to negotiate and compromise, decisions are made between the "40 yard lines." Whereas, when one party has a monopoly over multiple branches of government, decisions often are made closer to the extreme views of the ruling party.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Some independents vote to keep the party controlling the White House different than the party controlling Congress. The theory is that when the parties are forced to negotiate and compromise, decisions are made between the "40 yard lines." Whereas, when one party has a monopoly over multiple branches of government, decisions often are made closer to the extreme views of the ruling party.
I have often voted that way in the past, though the way I thought of it was more along the lines of, if one party controlled the white house and the other controlled congress, very little would get done. Which, I think, is how the framers of the constitution meant it to be.
This year, though, I actually want some change.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of my major concerns aren't even on the list of things the candidates care about at all. So I look at the ones that they DO have strong positions on, and choose the candidate who lines up with me on the issues among those that I prioritize the highest.
The Democrat usually wins, but not always. And especially in CA where we occasionally have viable 3rd party candidates for local offices I've been known to vote for them.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Some independents vote to keep the party controlling the White House different than the party controlling Congress. The theory is that when the parties are forced to negotiate and compromise, decisions are made between the "40 yard lines." Whereas, when one party has a monopoly over multiple branches of government, decisions often are made closer to the extreme views of the ruling party.
I have often voted that way in the past, though the way I thought of it was more along the lines of, if one party controlled the white house and the other controlled congress, very little would get done. Which, I think, is how the framers of the constitution meant it to be.
This year, though, I actually want some change.
The Framers never intended for there to be parties at all, and many were dismayed at their formation only years after ratification.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Democrats win a super-majority (filibuster-proof majority) in the Senate, consolidate their control over the House, and win the Presidency, then we will undoubtedly have change - and a lot of it.
I wonder if most Americans who call themselves "moderate" or "independent" and plan to vote in this election "for change" truly comprehend the extent of the change we really may be in for. Ultimately, moderates, independents, and centrists of all stripes (i.e., most Americans) may end up with less of a voice than they have ever had in recent history.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself an independent and find that who I vote for depends on what office they are running for. I believe that the more local the control the better. This is especially true because I live in a state with a robust economy, and feel that we do not need as much federal support as a poorer state would.
With that in mind I often vote for Republican in national offices (the senate and president), but I do agree with the state funding of programs that I would vigorously disagree with the feds funding, like health care. So I often vote democrat for state office. Of course this isn't across the board. It often depends on the candidate, and their experience as well, or on the job they do.
For instance I support more varied use of our state's land so I often vote libertarian for state land commisioner, on the off-chance that he runs, and he might win an office few people seriously consider. However this practice has been abridged due to a law suit by both major parties against my state preventing voters not registered for a party for voting in the primary. The result is non-partisan primary. All candidates run, but only the two highest in the primary make it to the ballot. That has made it so only the office of president has anyone running who is not a member of the two major parties. This has foiled my libertarian leanings on some position. I haven't officially voted yet, as I am still deciding how to resolve that problem.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: If the Democrats win a super-majority (filibuster-proof majority) in the Senate, consolidate their control over the House, and win the Presidency, then we will undoubtedly have change - and a lot of it.
I wonder if most Americans who call themselves "moderate" or "independent" and plan to vote in this election "for change" truly comprehend the extent of the change we really may be in for. Ultimately, moderates, independents, and centrists of all stripes (i.e., most Americans) may end up with less of a voice than they have ever had in recent history.
Moderates are going to have a lot more power than you suspect. The far left isn't going to be able to advance some radical agenda. A lot of the people being elected are moderate Democrats. Blue Dogs in the House are probably going to make up a fourth of the Dems' total power base, giving them a powerful voice for moderation, especially since many of them are being elected in very red districts.
As for the Senate, I don't think the Dems will get their 60 seats, but they might. I'd say it's a 50/50 shot. But even if they did, again, a lot of those guys are moderates, and you still have to consider Joe Lieberman is an independent that is extremely centrist, and bounces back and forth across party lines a lot. It'd only take one Democrat shifting gears to the other side to sustain a fillbuster, and Reid, like Pelosi, have been far more hesitant to crack the whip over the last two years.
I think you'll see a lot more compromise than you'd expect. They won't ram home anything and everything they want without talking to Republicans. They'll still negotiate, but Republicans will get less of what they want, and will have to settle for it. Teddy Kennedy is working on a major healthcare reform bill right now, and he's not crafting it by himself in secret, expecting he'll be able to shove it down our throats, he's working with industry, doctors, fellow Democrats, and Republicans to craft it. Could he wait and push it through? Maybe, but he wants there to be something close to a consensus because this is his ultimate issue and he wants it to work.
Republicans are using the possibility of the 60 as a fear mongering point for ads. Let Democrats get 60 votes and they'll pass legislation that let's people sell their babies to drug mules! Or whatever. The thing is, I wonder how they can argue that there shouldn't be a single party control when they had it themselves for six years. Is their argument this: "We can't let Democrats have total control, they'll screw it all up! I mean look what we did! We totally screwed this place up and they'll make it worse!" Obviously they don't have a problem with the IDEA of single party control, they're just selling the idea that Democrats will change the fabric of the country and ruin everything you believe in.
In reality, when you look at the absolute worst things that have happened in the last 8 years, I think it comes down to just two or three REALLY awful things. I think the next 2-4 years will be a few hot ticket items surrounding by a lot of little things that don't effect most people at all. We'll see.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For example, there are a lot of "fiscal conservatives" out there who don't seem to get that the Republicans no longer deserve that title."
Very few people who post here were even born when the Republicans still deserved that title. The GOP got in bed with the military-industrial complex and is still there today, gettin' freaky. Not that I'm anti-military, I just don't see the need to jump into a war when there's no need. (Vietnam, Iraq)
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least if we're going to get into needless wars, let's do it like we did in the 19th century. The war with Mexico, the Spanish American war? We kicked butt, got half the west, Cuba and the Phillippines, and did it with a remarkable lack of loss of life.
Ah the good ole days.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
