Here's a quote from the political commentator Bernard Levin, who died yesterday:

" Ask a man which way he is going to vote and he will probably tell you. Ask him, however, why, and vagueness is all"

Is that true? In reality how many voters can give solid reasons for their decision, rather than give rather airy, vague generalities, at best seizing on some detail as proof of a whole case, and judging by a perception, an image?

Great quote and good question! Is it true? Yes.

I feel that, at least in the U.S., the way people vote can be broken down into the following categories (which I don't claim is anywhere near complete):

The Single Issue Voter. An example would be "aborto-centrists" where the issue of abortion is not just the most important issue to them - but it is the only issue to them. This includes those on both sides of the abortion issue. In the U.S., abortion is probably the most dramatic example of the single issue voter. However, there are others.

The Partisan Voter. These people follow the "My Party, Right or Wrong" mantra in voting. It doesn't matter who the candidate is. All that matters is what party they belong to. Most of these people belong to whatever party they do because that happens to be the party their family or other peer group belongs to. Some others, however, purposely rebel from their parent's or peer's political party and join the "opposite" party, not out of principal, but out of contrariness and what they feel is rebelling.

The I Want to Vote for a Winner Voter. These people, like the Partisan Voter, don't vote on principal. These people are constantly saying, "I don't want to waste my vote." They'll have a couple possible candidates, but instead of actually looking at their stands on the issues, they look at the candidates and see which way the winds are blowing for those candidates, then vote for the one they think will win.

The Vote Against Voters. These people don't vote for anything or anyone. They only vote against someone. A tiny, tiny minority of these people do this out of a belief that it is good to try and "change the blood" and always vote against the incumbents. The vast majority of these voters, however, vote against someone based on a personal hatred of a candidate, not anything to do with their stand on the issues and not for anaything the challenger stands for.

The What Can You Give Me Voter. These voters ask themselves, "How much money will a candidate take out of the pockets of other people to give me?" The candidate who gives them a bigger number wins their vote.

The Combo Voter. These voters are a combination of any or all of the above.

The Informed Voter. These are the smallest minority of voters in the U.S. These people actually try to inform themselves on the issues. These people have actually read the U.S. Constitution. These people live rationally and not emotionally. These people fear all of the above type of voters who rely basically on mindless chants. Unfortunately, history has proven that mindless chants have worked the world over since time began.

Wow! Good question and good quote, Fred - and good answer, John!!

Personally, I am always striving to be the last sort of voter, but I see elements of Vote against Voter in myself, as much as I hate to admit it.

Thanks!

My response is probably airy and generalized, too: "because I agree with the majority of his platform points," or something like that. But it's the truth. I know who I will vote for, and I have my reasons. Sometimes it's the lesser of the two evils, sometimes it's the evil I haven't tried yet, but usually it's the person who seems to most stand for the things that I feel strongly about.
Sadly, most people don't take the time to research their candidates and let others do the thinking for them. When my husband does this it's no big deal because I'd just tell him who to vote for and, since I am always right, all would be well. But not everyone else is as lucky, to have me around to tell them what to do. People really ought to be researching and listening and digging a little bit to understand who they are voting for and why.
Alas, we are a lazy breed, though, and would rather be spoon-fed than burn a calorie on an actual thought.

John, out of all the catagories that you mentioned...which one do you fall under?

I usually be in agreement with the issues of the candidate that I vote for, so I feel that that person would serve better. However, I never agree with everything of my choice candidate, but it's better to vote for someone that you partially agree with, than to vote for someone that you don't agree with 'anything' he has to offer. If there was ever a Democrat that I disagreed with totally on 'everthing' he/she had to offer, then I wouldn't vote Democrat just for the sake of voting.

I usually find out whom DG is voting for and vote the other way

In reality, I like to perceive of myself as a politically astute, informed voter. Registered as "unaffiliated." In North Carolina I can vote in the primary of either major party (but not both) in any given election year. In local elections, I use this status and generally behave as an informed voter for mayor, school board, city council and judges. The reality for the rest of the ballot, however, is that I am probably a combo voter.

Single Issue Voter: More typically for me, any combination of three or more strikes on litmus test issues will guarantee that a candidate will not receive my vote.

Partisan Voter: I could intellectualize about this all I want, but I have never voted for a Democrat for President, U.S. Senate, Governor of North Carolina, or U. S. House of Representatives. I have voted for local Democrats, even some that lean to the left, in local elections. The pot needs a little spice.

I Want to Vote for a Winner Voter: Were I true to my political position, I would likely have voted for a Libertarian Party candidate. Couple that with my mistrust of the two party system and surely I must have voted for one. But I've never even so much as spent the time to investigate a Libertarian candidate knowing that one hasn't a prayer of winning.

Vote Against Voter: I will always vote against bond referenda. Somebody has to! The city spends a huge amount of money on bond campaigns that need a protest vote or two. Two is about all they get and one of them is mine.

What Can You Give Me Voter: Any major party candidate that thinks I can spend my money better than the government can has my attention. This is at complete odds with JG's definition, but arrives at the same place...I want the money in my pocket, not somebody else's!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elexina:
Alas, we are a lazy breed, though, and would rather be spoon-fed than burn a calorie on an actual thought.

---

Absolutely, 100% correct!

And it goes not just for putting forth a thought, but on any endeavor - even those vitally important to us. Ironically, this is the result of years of people voting. Insomuch as those voters who think it is the government's job to do everything for them, from getting them a job, to educating their children, to telling them what medicines they can and cannot use (and even paying for those medicines with someone else's money.) Is it any wonder then that something equally important as studying up on candidates and issues would be overlooked by the majority of people? "Why should I do that? That's the government’s job" is the mantra of most voters for nearly everything in their lives, so why not just have the government tell them how to think and how to vote as well?

quote:

---

Originally posted by honilov:
John, out of all the catagories that you mentioned...which one do you fall under?

---

Of those listed, I feel that I am an Informed Voter. But then again, I could be fooling myself . I admit that I am biased (as are all humans), so some of that bias may cause me not to see my own flaws on this subject. But the mere fact that I recognize such a possibility - I feel - helps push me more into the Informed Voter camp than some of the other types. But if I analyzed every vote and every issue, I'd probably have to technically call myself a "Combo Voter" if I substitute "Single Issue Voter" for "Five or Six Highly Important Issues" voter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by honilov:
I usually be in agreement with the issues of the candidate that I vote for, so I feel that person would serve better. However, I never agree with everything of my choice candidate...

---

I doubt that any one human being would ever be in 100% agreement on all issues with any other human being, let alone a particular candidate during a particular election. I don't think anyone would ever expect such a thing. I think the best we can strive for is picking those issues we feel are the most important to us and those candidates that come closest to our own principals and values.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coldfuse:
But I've never even so much as spent the time to investigate a Libertarian candidate knowing that one hasn't a prayer of winning.

---

Libertarian party members currently hold (at last count) 602 public offices, over 300 of which are elected local and state offices - more than all other "third party" officeholders combined.

Too many people fall for the "they can't win" trap, by thinking of it in terms of only a Presidential Race. It is easy to vote for one older party candidate for President and split your ticket for lower, more local offices - which, often times will have a greater impact on you and your taxes and other issues important to you than the Presidential Race. Besides, as the 2000 Election proved (with the exception of those fools out there who still don't know how the U.S. Presidential Election works ) single individual votes for the Office of the President don't really work in the same way they do in all other U.S. elections. When it comes to the Office of the President, what matters is the Electoral College (something some sore losers out there still haven't quite grasped.) For example, George W. Bush is going to win my state's Electoral Votes, period. I know that. Bush knows that. Kerry knows that. Some states may still up in the air as to their Electoral Votes. Mine ain't! So if I were inclined to vote for Bush, technically I would be wasting my vote by voting for him! Bush will win without my vote. Knowing that, I could use my vote for a third party Presidential candidate for any number of reasons - such as registering a "protest vote" against some of Bush's policies (without me aiding and abetting Kerry so that I could still have a clear conscious ), helping the third party obtain ballot access next election, helping the third party gain momentum and or media exposure, etc. Or as mentioned, just split the ticket however I see fit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coldfuse:
What Can You Give Me Voter: Any major party candidate that thinks I can spend my money better than the government can has my attention. This is at complete odds with JG's definition, but arrives at the same place...I want the money in my pocket, not somebody else's!

---

Not at odds at all in that they are two separate types of voters. The "What Can You Give Me Voter" wants their candidate to take other people's money away from them via gunpoint and put it in the WCYGM voter's pocket without the WCYGM voter having earned it. Your example of another type of voter simply wants to keep their own money! I can't blame them - or you! They (and you) earned it! The candidate will usually try to malign you by calling you "greedy" for you having the gall to want to keep the money you worked hard for. And the candidate will have plenty of voters who will help them in their campaign to take your money to give to them.


----------------

Contrary to their claims otherwise, the vast majority of U.S. politicians don't want more people voting. The less people voting, the less people the politicians have to fool and the easier it is for them to keep getting back into office over and over and over again. This is why they make laws making it difficult or impossible for third parties to enter elections or run for offices. They want it to be the lowest amount of voters possible. Granted, they want the "right" type of people voting - and they will (and have) rigged the system to that end and will fight tooth and nail against any effective voting reform. An example would be something I would advocate - 24 hour voting. The polls across the country would open at the exact same time everywhere coast to coast and all close at the exact same time everywhere coast to coast after being open for exactly 24 hours. The only problem with this is that it would make it easier for people with jobs to vote. As it stands now, the politicians want to make it difficult for those who contribute the most tax money to the public coffers. Their job is not to vote. Their job is to cough up more money so the politicians can use that money to buy the votes of those who don't work for that money. Just ask any politician if they would be in favor of 24 hour elections and watch how many silly reasons they come up with to not go for such a system.

Another election/voting reform that would be good for the U.S. (but bad for the politicians) would be Instant Runoff Voting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnGalt: Too many people fall for the "they can't win" trap, by thinking of it in terms of only a Presidential Race.

---

And just because the candidate hasn't got a prayer in winning, that doesn't mean you've wasted your vote. We had a governor's election here a while back and it was pretty obvious that Pataki was going to be re-elected, but I don't like him so I didn't vote for him, and I couldn't in good conscience vote for the other two front runners. Rather, I voted for the Green Party candidate (with whom I actually agreed on the majority of issues!) in the hopes that he would get enough votes to grant the party a space on the ballot in the next election.
Sometimes voting isn't just about who wins, it's what you do with your vote.

And Elexina, if people had not thought as you in the past our politics would have been the worse for it.
Here the Labour Party would not exist but for such hope and independent thinking; yet it went from no seats in the beginning of the C20 , when the Liberal Party was the second party, to 466 now ,the party in power with a second consecutive landslide victory. In the beginning few would have thought that ordinary working people were interested enough in their world or concerned or committed enough to create a new and effective force. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, was down to six seats by the 1960s.Our current third party, the Liberal Democrats, has gone from scratch to 52 seats in less than twenty years.

Somebody has to not just think, controversially, that women should have the vote or that trade unions be legal, and all the rest of what we now accept, but they have to do something about it. Waiting for existing parties or forces to think that way is no way to achieve the reform, and without those who would vote for an alternative way, where would we be ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by FredPuli: Somebody has to not just _think_, (...) but they have to do something about it.

---

But Fred, it's so HAAAARD to think for myself... It requires actually effort and energy! Hummphh. I don' wanna think and I don' wanna DO!