When you vote, what consideration counts the most?

[ricksfolly]

Party...

Party platform...

Personalities...

voting against, not for...

voting for your own best interests...

ricksfolly

 

[digsbe]

I would say their past reccord and political beliefs are what matter the most to me. Anyone can claim to run on X position with X beliefs. But if their record doesn't show that they actually uphold them, then I am not going to be played and vote for a lying politician. When I turned 18 I registered as a Republican (and I wish I could remove that) when I registered to vote. However, I would vote for a Democrat who shared my political/social beliefs. Party affiliation doesn't mean much to me, I'd rather judge the person based on their individual past and present instead of their party.

 

[Laila]

Individual MP's personality mean very little as does their record seeing party whips would keep them in line anyway.

I vote for the party not the MP

 

[jamesrage]

When I vote I vote for the issues that politician stands for. Which I guess would be voting for my own best interests. Of course when I say issues they stand for I mean what they have voted for in the past.Because a politician can say they are against something but if records prove otherwise then they are a lying sack of **** trying to play me for a sucker. Its idiotic to vote for someone based on party,party platform or personality.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

If I vote again, it will be for individual platform and candidate history.

 

[Redress]

The candidates platform over any other consideration.

Edit: do you want poll options added to this thread?

 

[ricksfolly]

I would say their past reccord and political beliefs are what matter the most to me. Anyone can claim to run on X position with X beliefs. But if their record doesn't show that they actually uphold them, then I am not going to be played and vote for a lying politician. When I turned 18 I registered as a Republican (and I wish I could remove that) when I registered to vote. However, I would vote for a Democrat who shared my political/social beliefs. Party affiliation doesn't mean much to me, I'd rather judge the person based on their individual past and present instead of their party.

I don't keep up with all the details of either party, nobody does or can, so all I can do is make sure the one I vote for is closest to my own self interests.

Richard

 

[Groucho]

It's a combination of many things.

I might agree with one politician on issues but know that he would be a terrible leader and wouldn't be able to get anything done, for instance. Or that he would alienate so much that he'd never even get elected.

 

[Gabriel]

I prefer party platform. Individual candidates often don't actually go with the party line on a person to person basis but often they get reined in by partisan politics. You have to take the party platform as in what they are going to do.. as the primary axiom of the person you vote for.

Independents are just that but often they are simply bought out under the crony capitalist special interest groups. So independents are just guns for hire often times which would be perfectly fine if they were bought by ideas and not money.

 

[Goshin]

The individual's issue positions and his history on issue positions, primarily. The positions I hold are those I think are best for the nation; I wouldn't vote for someone whose positions were mostly in opposition to my own.

Second, does he come across as a douchebag, liar, or idiot. That's generally a dealbreaker regardless of stated policy positions. The only caveat to that is whether the alternative candidate looks as bad or worse.

Party is a lesser issue, but not entirely trivial as party mechanisms will tend to push individual politicians to vote with the party on what are considered crucial votes.

 

[TurtleDude]

1) the individual's track record-do they have a history of voting for the issues I find most important

2) generally the issues most important to me are taxes, gun rights, and whether they oppose income redistribution. I have found that the politicians who tend to trust people to own guns tend to believe that individuals are in the best position to decide what to do with their own money

3) other considerations. for example, if congress is a close call, I might support a GOP congressman who would get us a GOP SOTH even if the dem might be slightly better on the issues.

In Ohio, I plan on voting for Governor STrickland, though he is a dem. Why? as a freshman congressman he voted against the clinton gun bans despite strong pressure to sell out his constituents who tended to be poor miners and farmers who are dems but pro gun. His opponent-Kave IN Kasich changed his vote to favor the clinton gun ban (thus being the deciding vote) so as to ingratiate himself to the White House so WJC would sign Kasich's Penney-Kasich bill. He's a dishonest weasel and while he would be better overall in terms of his agenda, I will never vote for him after his sell out in 1994

I also will vote for Dem Richard cordray for AG of Ohio. Cordray is the most qualified individual in Ohio state government. A five time jeopardy champion, he is well respected as a professional. He also has an NRA A rating and spends most of his time prosecuting real criminals. His opponent-Mike DeWhine was one of the worst RINOs in the senate who was the only Republican to vote against the Bill that prevents slimey plaintiff's attorneys from suing gun makers over a crime committed with a gun that passed through at least two other hands after the maker sold it. DeWhine also threatened the Bush white house back when Jeffords swung to the left giving the dems control to do the same thing unless Bush appointed Dewhine's rinos to the bench and other offices.

On the rest of the races I will vote GOP. Rob Portman is a friend of mine and the most qualified guy running in Ohio in federal elections. His opponent is your classic gun hating bureaucracy loving welfare socialist. While I cannot vote for Steve Chabot, I support him strongly since he was another guy who always voted consistently for less taxes. The guy who upset him in 08 due to hordes of first time voting Obama bots, promised to be a fiscal conservative but became Nancy Pelosi's little but boy.

 

[Camlon]

This would be for Norway. I can't vote in New Zealand yet.

1. Economic policies
Are they right wing? Do they want to remove uneccecary restrictions such as the cap on the number of hours you can work? Are they against unions? Do they want to lower the taxation and cut spending? Do they want to make it harder to live on social security? It's very easy to live on hand outs.

2. Immigration policies
Do they want to make it harder for asylum seekers to immigrate? Because they are not productive, they don't integrate very well especially when the numbers get big and it's not helping poor people. You can't save the world by letting 0.1% of Africas population to Europe.
Do they want to make the system more clear so that it is easier for educated immigrants to immigrate to Norway?

3. Educational policies
Do they want the school system to demand more from the students? Do they want to increase the wages for teachers and improve their conditions so that the major teacher shortage is reduced (many political parties will say they are, but in fact no parties care very much abut that problem) Do they want to make it easier to fire bad teachers? Do they want more exams and grading from fifth grade?

Schools in Norway needs to be fixed. Norway did horrible in pretty much all of the international surveys. However, the left tries to use every chance they get to tell how awsome the school system is. For instance Norway got in the middle in an international survey, which tested the students understanding of democracy. Then our educational minister said that the teachers could go home with their heads high.

Anyway, politics in Norway is miserable, and I'm very far away from mainstream politics.

 

[The_Patriot]

When I vote the only thing that matters is which candidate will get us faster to bankruptcy. I liken the one party with two names as to the gas chamber in California and the lethal injection table in Texas. Yes, both states have the death penalty, but one has the check out line from Wal-Mart with too many customers and the express lane with no customers. I want the one that is the express lane. I know it's a cynical view, but given the track record of politicians since I've been alive have left me with it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Combination of supporting issues that are important to me and past history. Political party would be a distant third. Most important issues to me are supporting GM, health care reform, supporting national security, support and reform for social programs and education, and cracking down on illegal immigration. If a candidate is consistent with my positions on these issues, he/she gets my vote. Mostly, this would be a Democrat, however, if the candidate has a very negative history, one that is more negative than the other candidate's positions, I would probably withhold my vote. In the recent NJ governatorial election, Christie was the antithesis of who I would want elected, however, Corzine was about as corrupt as they come. I withheld my vote.

 

[Cold Highway]

I vote on what the candidate's history is and what they do to maximize liberty.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

1st consideration are the candidate's positions, 2nd consideration is whether the candidate's history matches his alleged positions.

 

[rivrrat]

Party is irrelevant and thus so is party platform.
I would never waste my vote by voting against someone.

I decide based on the candidate's record on issues and what they say they plan to do if elected. Their personal stances I disagree with aren't so much a consideration for me unless I feel they will enact legislation to force their personal stances on the rest of the populace. For instance, I have no issue at all with an anti-choice candidate. I would only have an issue if they had a history of trying to ban the procedure and/or stated that was their intention if elected.

 

[Ikari]

The candidates political platform is what matters most. If it lines up enough with mine, I can consider supporting that candidate. If not, then I can't.

 

[Gipper]

I vote for the person with the most sound domestic policy. Foreign policy matters very little in comparison.

 

[lizzie]

For me, it's personal character and integrity, the candidate's ability to be comfortable in his own skin, and his ability to look at the big picture and support policies for personal liberty and a strong economy.

 

[fredmertz]

I would say their past reccord and political beliefs are what matter the most to me. Anyone can claim to run on X position with X beliefs. But if their record doesn't show that they actually uphold them, then I am not going to be played and vote for a lying politician. When I turned 18 I registered as a Republican (and I wish I could remove that) when I registered to vote. However, I would vote for a Democrat who shared my political/social beliefs. Party affiliation doesn't mean much to me, I'd rather judge the person based on their individual past and present instead of their party.

I too registered as a Republican when I turned 18. But I was able to change it through my DMV office to 'independent'. I don't know what state you live in, but you should check it out.

 

[disneydude]

I vote for the person that is closest to me on the issues. Turns out that 98% of the time...that is the Democratic candidate, although most of them are waaaaaay too moderate for my tastes. So it is usually voting for the best of the two bad alternatives.

 

[liblady]

The individual's issue positions and his history on issue positions, primarily. The positions I hold are those I think are best for the nation; I wouldn't vote for someone whose positions were mostly in opposition to my own.

Second, does he come across as a douchebag, liar, or idiot. That's generally a dealbreaker regardless of stated policy positions. The only caveat to that is whether the alternative candidate looks as bad or worse.

Party is a lesser issue, but not entirely trivial as party mechanisms will tend to push individual politicians to vote with the party on what are considered crucial votes.

the good of the country, and then party platform, then individual.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

If the candidate has past legislative experience, then based on how they voted, how good of a leader they were, and the success rate of the bills they got passed. However, if the candidate has no legislative experience than I would ask why they are better than their opposition and how they are planning to do what they say they will do.

 

[jujuman13]

When I vote, what is of paramount importance to me is that my vote is counted.