Need DU Opinion On Question Of "One Issue" Voting

Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 01:41 PM by Jon8503

Let's say you have a candidate who is of your party in a very conservative state. Overall, he is certainly the lessor of two evils and is a good congressman. However, due to his constituency, he has to compromise on issues to stay in office and he seems to consistently win his elections because he is well liked and respected. Let's say out of 12 issues, you agree with 8, 9, 10 or 11 of them but you are passionate about one and he has voted against that one issue.

My opinion is you stick with him on the belief of, first, I am not a one issue person, I look at the overall picture and what is the best way overall and second, I feel he has to do some give & take being in a very Conservative state and unfortunately has to vote not the way you want on some things. It is like being in the ACLU & I don't always agree with them but I know overall they are going to be the best in the end.

What does DU think?

It depends on the issue. If it's an honest-to-goodness deal-breaker, I'd vote third party. If it's something I really don't like, I'd vote for the lesser of two evils and try to apply pressure on him/her to change on that issue. Sometimes it's helpful to remind candidates that there are liberals out there and we vote. I honestly think most people lose sight of that fact because the rw minority is so loud and so dishonest.

If there is no candidate worthy of my vote I will withhold it. I do not vote based on a letter after the person's name.

I won't place party loyalty above my principles. Too many repugs do place party loyalty first, and this enables and supports corruption. The repug politicians know that their voters will stand behind them, no matter what they do.

During Watergate, there were republican congressman who spoke out about the criminal activities of the Nixon administration. That isn't happening today, and the repug voters who support them are just as guilty for their enabling.

I won't be an enabler.

The government has become corrupt because of one-issue voting. This is true especially of voters who are conservative on abortion. They'll vote for abortion abolitionist candidates (who are not really pro-life) despite the fact that these same gangsters are owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate criminals.

Radical clerics politicking from the pulpit have too much power over voters who have been brainwashed to believe abortion abolition or the gay issue trumps health care for their own children and/or decent-paying jobs that could allow them to support their families. Too many Americans are turning a blind eye to the culture of corruption of the Repukes, just because they claim to oppose abortion!

This is true even for the one-issue voter in terms of keeping abortion legal. It's the militancy, stupid.

It's time for people to start compromising. Compromise is a sign of strength and character, not weakness.

I will not vote for my Democratic senator again due to her support of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and generally Bush policies. This is a difficult decision to make but I believe that the Democratic Party should not be an extension of the Republican party. I do support
the Democratic Party nationally and plan to contribute to other key
races across the country but I cannot vote for a Bush bot. I agree
that focus on a single issue is not feasible, i.e. the right to life overlooking the Iraq War and the death of thousands of innocents but a line has to be drawn somewhere. As Galloway said, the entire world has
been damaged by the failure of our democratic party to function as the
opposition party. He was surprised to hear Republican talking points
coming out of the mouths of our Democratic Leaders. Our representatives must be held accountable for the last 5 years, if not now, when. I realize that I will be flamed for this.

Let's say the 9th ward gets to vote between a levee with many leaks and a levee with one leak. Should they vote for the latter or take to the steets with pitchforks and torches? :eyes:

I know. Only those folks with homes close to the leak even care, right?

They shouldn't HAVE to compromise. A small leak, untended, becomes a gaping maw, drowning them, if unattended.

No compromise - they should refuse to vote until the alternatives represent their needs.

on edit:
And that false premise is exactly why more people stay home on election day than go to the polls. If neither option tends to your needs, why bother?

We are only going to accomplish it a little at a time, in a series of elections.
I am looking for a candidates views on Human Rights, which include; closing Guantanamo as a prison camp, prosecuting the real torturers, taking serious step to reduce pollution because of the detrimental health effects caused by pollution, providing Health Care to all Americans, supporting gays as any other group of people, standing up for workers rights to a safe workplace and the right to have a Union.
I want to support candidates who can see that America is going to be a better place when all of our citizens have the opportunity to get as much education as they have the talent to absorb. We also need to be ready to re-educate people who need training for different work.
We need candidates who will support renewable energy sources like wind, bio-mass, and solar power.
We need a mass transit system such as the Europeans have, maybe even better.

Very few of the Democrats meet my standards.
Most Democrats are bought, and paid for, by corporate interests.
But, most Democrats are better than any Republican.

of them comes close to matching my political views but ANY Mississippi Republican replacing them would be far, far, worse. Your attitude is the one that would lead to regaining a majority in the house and senate. Sadly, its in a distinct minority on DU where compromise is belittled and idealogical purity is often demanded.

This DUer agrees with you whole-heartedly.