• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would you vote for and Independent for president?

Would you vote for and Independent for president?

  • Total voters
    32
Depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Very unlikely though, especially if the independent in question doesn't have a real chance of winning.
 
There are only a few things that matter to me when choosing a candidate to vote for, in order of priority. Shares my political ideology as much as possible or at least more so then the other candidates, is educated, politically intelligent, honest, humble, and well-spoken. I could make a huge list but these are the general ones.

Political party has pretty much no sway.
 
Gibberish said:
There are only a few things that matter to me when choosing a candidate to vote for, in order of priority. Shares my political ideology as much as possible or at least more so then the other candidates, is educated, politically intelligent, honest, humble, and well-spoken. I could make a huge list but these are the general ones.

Political party has pretty much no sway.
Click to expand...

Even if the Democrat had 49%, the Republican had 49%, and your dream candidate was polling at 2%?
 
Kandahar said:
Even if the Democrat had 49%, the Republican had 49%, and your dream candidate was polling at 2%?
Click to expand...

I would. Honestly I think everything would work out best if everyone simply voted for the candidate they thought would best do the job.

I think the "you're taking votes away from X" or "X doesn't really have a chance" are self fulfilling prophecies considering the pervasiveness of such arguments. These notions are part of the problem IMO.
 
If there's one worth voting for, sure, why not? Of course, finding any candidate, regardless of party, worth voting for... that's the hard part.
 
Only if the two party candidates were both so far from my political philosophy I didn't think it would matter which one won. But that seems unlikely. As bad as the candidates may be, one always seems worse from my perspective.
 
I always vote for the candidate I feel is the best, regardless of politcal affiliation. If the independant voter won me over then sure I would.
 
Kandahar said:
Even if the Democrat had 49%, the Republican had 49%, and your dream candidate was polling at 2%?
Click to expand...

The candidates ideology, experience, and education should be the deciding factors of an election. Not the size of their bankroll or their parties bankroll.

The voting platform in America today is flawed. Candidates positions are purchased, not earned. One candidate maybe be better then another but the lesser candidate will have a likely of being elected if their marketing/advertising bankroll is bigger.
 
In America it seems like the majority of people would vote for an independent but the use the logic they cant win.However the real logic is you individual vote doesent matter anyway so just vote for what you think.

Fact is conservatives are too afraid of the democrats getting in they vote for the republican candidate and vice versa.With the power of the internet people should realise they dont have to vote for a party they should just vote for what they think it makes no logical sense that out off all possible candidates ethier a rep or dem should win just vote for what you believe.
 
Gibberish said:
The candidates ideology, experience, and education should be the deciding factors of an election. Not the size of their bankroll or their parties bankroll.

The voting platform in America today is flawed. Candidates positions are purchased, not earned. One candidate maybe be better then another but the lesser candidate will have a likely of being elected if their marketing/advertising bankroll is bigger.
Click to expand...

There is little evidence that you can buy an election. While it is true that the candidate with more money typically wins elections, this does not imply a causal relationship. The same characteristics in a candidate that attract votes also attract money.
 
Kandahar said:
There is little evidence that you can buy an election. While it is true that the candidate with more money typically wins elections, this does not imply a causal relationship. The same characteristics in a candidate that attract votes also attract money.
Click to expand...

Yes but then the public is not the one catapulting the candidate to election, interest groups that invest in the candidates campaign are. So interest groups do not actually vote someone into office but they make the informal decision of who has a realistic chance of winning.

By investing large sums of money into a candidate interest groups choose for America who we will be on the ballot.

In the end I guess it doesn't matter since it is the Electoral votes that elect the President and not the popular vote.
 
Gibberish said:
By investing large sums of money into a candidate interest groups choose for America who we will be on the ballot.
Click to expand...

To some degree this is true. But money is only important up to a point. A candidate needs to have enough money to become well-known...but after the voters know who the candidate is, spending money produces diminishing returns. As long as the voters know who a candidate is and have a vague idea of what he/she stands for, I don't really see what the difference is between spending $100 million and $1 billion.
 
Depends on a number of factors.

I live in a non-swing state. Illinois is going to go Democratic sure as rain this election, so I can "waste" my vote and vote for the best man regardless of party affiliation. If I lived in a swing state, I'd be more inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils. Though if both candidates were disasters waiting to happen (aka Clinton vs. Guliani), I'd probably go with a 3rd party or independent candidate even if I lived in a swing state.
 
Kandahar said:
To some degree this is true. But money is only important up to a point. A candidate needs to have enough money to become well-known...but after the voters know who the candidate is, spending money produces diminishing returns. As long as the voters know who a candidate is and have a vague idea of what he/she stands for, I don't really see what the difference is between spending $100 million and $1 billion.
Click to expand...

There isn't a difference after the candidate is known. The money is what gets the candidate know though. A mediocre candidate that is constantly advertising, holding speaking rallies, and doing other things that cost big campaign dollars will more likely be nominated then a great candidate that is not widely known because he/she does not have the funds and depends on word of mouth marketing.

Americans settle for the mediocre that is supported by investors (who most likely have an agenda that is more in the interest of their profits then the American people) rather then the possible great.
 
Of course. Why wouldn't I?

Political party affiliation is irrelevant
 
Yes I would.

But probably not unless he/she had a reasonable chance of winning the election.

Otherwise I would vote to keep the worst candidate out of office.
 
I would. Whomever has the most in common with my views overall, will probably get my vote. Regardless of party affiliation...I don't see it as throwing away my vote, its my damn vote not the republicans or the democrats.
 
Kandahar said:
Even if the Democrat had 49%, the Republican had 49%, and your dream candidate was polling at 2%?
Click to expand...

If everyone didn't think this way, the Independent would have a much larger chance of winning the election. Imagine if everyone that thought, "Well he doesn't have a chance but I liked him" voted for him, think of how many votes that would bring in for him/her and tip the scales, maybe in their favor? Wonder if 16% of each party thought with that mentality, but instead of not voting for the guy they liked (The independent), they did? That was be 32% right there!

1/3 is a lot easier to pull then 1/2.
 
I also want to add if, during the final debates for presidency, we had a Dem, Rep, and Independent debating, don't you think that Independent could pull a lot of votes his way if he was a better candidate then the other two (very high possibility in this upcoming election!)
 
Kasmos said:
If everyone didn't think this way, the Independent would have a much larger chance of winning the election. Imagine if everyone that thought, "Well he doesn't have a chance but I liked him" voted for him, think of how many votes that would bring in for him/her and tip the scales, maybe in their favor? Wonder if 16% of each party thought with that mentality, but instead of not voting for the guy they liked (The independent), they did? That was be 32% right there!

1/3 is a lot easier to pull then 1/2.
Click to expand...

The fallacy of this argument is assuming that if you vote for the best candidate, everyone else will too. Not a very practical way to vote.
 
Kandahar said:
The fallacy of this argument is assuming that if you vote for the best candidate, everyone else will too. Not a very practical way to vote.
Click to expand...

That may be the fallacy, but more importantly the problem with our country is that almost everyone thinks the way you do. How can voting for the guy who has a better chance of winning over the guy you honestly like be the democratic way our founding fathers invisioned? If everyone didn't and voted the way they really wanted to, I'd give the chance of an Independent winning very high, especially in this election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom