Would You Vote For Unaffiliated Candidates? (1 Viewer)

[TwEnTY-SiX]

Given the public's low opinion of Congress, and the disdain that members of each party seems so willing to show each other, I am curious as to who would be open to an alternative form of representation. Perhaps a candidate who has no party line to dilute his/her passion or philosophy. Perhaps a candidate who is runs on a platform of integrity over ideology. Perhaps whatever ideal you may fancy, but free of party-control and able to pursue their own vision.

So would you be willing to vote for an unaffiliated candidate in a national election? I would be curious as to why you would say 'yes' or 'no' and what conditions might apply to your decision.

 

[NeverTrump]

Given the public's low opinion of Congress, and the disdain that members of each party seems so willing to show each other, I am curious as to who would be open to an alternative form of representation. Perhaps a candidate who has no party line to dilute his/her passion or philosophy. Perhaps a candidate who is runs on a platform of integrity over ideology. Perhaps whatever ideal you may fancy, but free of party-control and able to pursue their own vision.

So would you be willing to vote for an unaffiliated candidate in a national election? I would be curious as to why you would say 'yes' or 'no' and what conditions might apply to your decision.

I really want Huntsman to run as an independent. He doesn't belong in today's republican party. He also has very many stances on issues that the Democrats and especially liberals have a problem with. But at the same time common sense loyal democrats said during the primaries that Huntsman was the only Republican they would consider. Just about everyone else tows the party lines. None of the other current "third party" choices are good either. They are too fringe, kooky, or insane!

 

[Fisher]

I could but it would be awful hard for them to get on enough ballots to have a shot if they have no machine. If they didn't have their names on enough states' ballots to have a mathematical chance, as improbable as it would be, then no.

 

[Helix]

Given the public's low opinion of Congress, and the disdain that members of each party seems so willing to show each other, I am curious as to who would be open to an alternative form of representation. Perhaps a candidate who has no party line to dilute his/her passion or philosophy. Perhaps a candidate who is runs on a platform of integrity over ideology. Perhaps whatever ideal you may fancy, but free of party-control and able to pursue their own vision.

So would you be willing to vote for an unaffiliated candidate in a national election? I would be curious as to why you would say 'yes' or 'no' and what conditions might apply to your decision.

absolutely. political parties narrow our choices. if i could wave a wand and eliminate the party system / duopoly, i would.

 

[NeverTrump]

I really want Huntsman to run as an independent. He doesn't belong in today's republican party. He also has very many stances on issues that the Democrats and especially liberals have a problem with. But at the same time common sense loyal democrats said during the primaries that Huntsman was the only Republican they would consider. Just about everyone else tows the party lines. None of the other current "third party" choices are good either. They are too fringe, kooky, or insane!

That being said, My answer to your question is NO. I am a Republican. So I vote Republican.

 

[jamesrage]

Given the public's low opinion of Congress, and the disdain that members of each party seems so willing to show each other, I am curious as to who would be open to an alternative form of representation. Perhaps a candidate who has no party line to dilute his/her passion or philosophy. Perhaps a candidate who is runs on a platform of integrity over ideology. Perhaps whatever ideal you may fancy, but free of party-control and able to pursue their own vision.

So would you be willing to vote for an unaffiliated candidate in a national election? I would be curious as to why you would say 'yes' or 'no' and what conditions might apply to your decision.

Assuming that candidate shared my views and the republicrats in my state didn't screw 3rd party candidates in presidential elections yes I would vote for unaffiliated candidate.

 

[radcen]

Idealistically, I'd prefer a President with no affiliation. Realistically, I think both parties would see that person as a common enemy and would team up to thwart everything they do or say.

 

[Cardinal]

absolutely. political parties narrow our choices. if i could wave a wand and eliminate the party system / duopoly, i would.

Unfortunately, seeing as alliances will always make for stronger agendas, a magic wand is pretty much the only solution here.

 

[Cephus]

No, I wouldn't. Pragmatically, the whole point of voting is to get the candidate you support elected so that the policies that you want enacted can be put into law. There is no point betting on a losing horse, especially when it's a horse with no legs that can't run anyhow. I want my candidate to win, that's why I only vote for candidates that have the potential to do so. Otherwise, I'm just wasting my time.

 

[Summerwind]

Cannot answer a clean yes or no. It depends on the race. Local, even state, level, absolutely. House and Congress, would like to but it'd have to be a strong candidate, otherwise I'll choose the lesser of two evils. President, probably not, at least not as things stand now, better to vote for the lesser of evils if in a state where the vote might count. In heavy red or blue states, even for president, yes.

 

[radcen]

No, I wouldn't. Pragmatically, the whole point of voting is to get the candidate you support elected so that the policies that you want enacted can be put into law. There is no point betting on a losing horse, especially when it's a horse with no legs that can't run anyhow. I want my candidate to win, that's why I only vote for candidates that have the potential to do so. Otherwise, I'm just wasting my time.

In other words, being able to proclaim yourself being on the winning team is paramount.

That's fine. That's a valid reason. Problem is, voting for someone you know you'll dislike is no less a waste of time, and the insecure need to be identified with the winning team only perpetuates the problem.

 

[Cephus]

In other words, being able to proclaim yourself being on the winning team is paramount.

That's fine. That's a valid reason. Problem is, voting for someone you know you'll dislike is no less a waste of time, and the insecure need to be identified with the winning team only perpetuates the problem.

It has nothing to do with being identified with the winning team. The only side that is going to make a damn bit of difference in politics is the one that actually gets elected. You can vote for anyone you want, you can vote for yourself for all I care, but unless you actually get elected, none of the things that you want to do are actually going to get done. You are going to have to live under the rule, laws and policies of the person who actually gets elected, no matter who you voted for. Being idealistic doesn't actually get you anywhere, you just made a trip to the polls, flipped a lever and wasted your time.

 

[Redress]

Given the public's low opinion of Congress, and the disdain that members of each party seems so willing to show each other, I am curious as to who would be open to an alternative form of representation. Perhaps a candidate who has no party line to dilute his/her passion or philosophy. Perhaps a candidate who is runs on a platform of integrity over ideology. Perhaps whatever ideal you may fancy, but free of party-control and able to pursue their own vision.

So would you be willing to vote for an unaffiliated candidate in a national election? I would be curious as to why you would say 'yes' or 'no' and what conditions might apply to your decision.

I cannot answer your poll since the correct answer for me is "it depends on the situation". While I consider myself a democrat and am affiliated with the party, I do not vote for a party, I vote for candidates. Admittedly that is more often than not a distinction without a difference since the reason I am a democrat is that I believe in the ideals and issues of the party far more often than not which means the democratic candidate is the one who probably most matches my beliefs. I would however vote for any candidate who most matches my ideological concepts, stance on issues and priorities, assuming they have a reasonable chance to win the election.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I voted yes, because I typically vote for whichever candidate runs closest to my core ideals, regardless of political party.