Would you change your vote for One Issue?

[Elgalad]

I recently saw a news conference or stump speech that Senator Kerry was giving somewhere on the subject of Stem-Cell Research. Now this thread isn't about that specifically, but apparently this is a subject that greatly impacts the actor, Michael J. Fox. His political stance in the past has been staunchly Republican but it appears (at least on this topic) he supports John Kerry's position on expanding research on Stem-Cells. Now if someone who was such a firm supporter of a political ideology can change on one issue like that, I wonder how common this sort of thing might be among the general populace. Well, that might be tricky but at least we can find out a little more about our fellow posters.

So the question is: Would you give up your support of your current political party for one issue if you believed the opposing party's candidate was closer to your own position? And if so, what issue would change your mind? Remember, this issue is important enough to you that you would give up voting for the candidate who represents all (or most of) your other issues.

Let's please try to keep this discussion in the realms of reality if possible. i.e. abortion/pro-life works, as does gun control, the war in Iraq, real issues like that. But please no glib answers like, "he can pronounce nookyular" or "he doesn't use botox and spray-on tan".


-Elgalad

 

[Elgalad]

This is a tough question for me. I've supported Republican/Conservative politics for about 15 years, before that I was more of a Libertarian. I have always strongly supported Freedom in all its shapes, particularly the rights we Americans are guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'm basically a fiscal and social conservative, a veteran, a Christian, and a male, so classically I'm the epitome of your typical GOP voter.

But what would make me change my vote to Democrat or Independent? There are a few things.. For one, if I thought my candidate (Republican) would harm the Constitution or weaken national security I would definitely look for another option. But in regards to specific things like abortion, which I do feel strongly about (I oppose its legality), or taxes/spending, these wouldn't be enough to get me to change my vote on their own. This isn't so much a matter of 'giving in to the lesser of two evils' as it is having to set a priority and stick with it. My priorities when it comes to deciding on a President are the Constitution and a strong Defense. I would have different priorities when I vote for my Senator/Representative, and in That case, abortion and taxes/spending would definitely play a stronger role than national defense. (Congressmen have a much different job than Presidents)

-Elgalad

 

[emzie]

It depends on the issue. Michael J. Fox is deteriorating day by day; what he wants most for himself is not a tax cut, but to have a chance to stop deteriorating.

Kerry can offer the potential. Bush isn't. He'd rather have a cure for Parkinson’s than anything Bush offers. I don't think it's shocking that he'd change his position.

I don't think anything Bush (for that matter, Kerry too) would ever propose would be within my political ideology. I'm too far left. Terrorism doesn't bother me, nor does Defense (I believe in a healthy and strong military, but not with increasing funding). Though, if Bush took back his tax cuts and put the money into lowering health care costs, I might vote for him.

If he did away with the IRS and instituted a national sales tax (like has been speculated) I'd probably vote for him.

 

[IglooDame]

Hmmm, interesting question. Bush would get my vote if he withdrew support for the Patriot Act, reversed his spending urges, and signalled a less-Vietnamic policy in Iraq. Kerry would get my vote if he indicated (with something more than a politician's promise) that he would follow the libertarian interpretation of the Second Amendment, and reversed his social spending urges. In other words, Mickey Mouse has as much chance of getting my vote as either of them do this time around, and Nader less than that as the only thing that appeals to me about his campaign is that it is "not-Demopublican".

 

[JohnRM]

Are you sure that you are not confusing Michael J. Fox, the actor and a character that he played "Alex", on the TV Show Family Ties?

 

[test_specimen]

Unfortunately I can't vote in the US, if I were a Republican in the US there would be hundreds of reasons to vote Kerry instead of Bush. Off course if I were a Republican in the US I'd probably only watch FOX and think that anyone possessing knowledge of his own language and in addition another, foreign language and having the ability to formulate a coherent sentence would pose a threat to national security. I'd probably also want young people sent to death in senseless wars because I desperately need a job in the economy that has been ruined over the four last years and everyone who dies heightens my chances of getting a job. But since I'm not allowed to vote in the US and I don't want to turn this into another thread bashing Bush for his failures over the last four years and the obvious disaster another presidency would lead to, I have to answer the question for my own country, where I can vote (thank you Americans!).

I usually vote the Greens who are basically pro-freedom in most things (homosexuality, abortion, etc.). I'd probably not vote for them if they started to raise taxes, made education available only for the rich and introduce totalitarian measures against individual peace like banning abortion or move away from their demand that sex between consenting adults should remain private.

If they only disagree with me in one thing (they do: I don't think GM food should be banned as long as it's sufficiently labelled) I still vote for them.

edit: I like replying to troll threads before they are closed, it gives me a feeling of standing on the edge of imminent apocalypse.

 

[IglooDame]

Unfortunately I can't vote in the US, if I were a Republican in the US there would be hundreds of reasons to vote Kerry instead of Bush. <bashing snipped> (thank you Americans!).

I usually vote the Greens who are basically pro-freedom in most things (homosexuality, abortion, etc.). I'd probably not vote for them if they started to raise taxes, made education available only for the rich and introduce totalitarian measures against individual peace like banning abortion or move away from their demand that sex between consenting adults should remain private.

If they only disagree with me in one thing (they do: I don't think GM food should be banned as long as it's sufficiently labelled) I still vote for them.

edit: I like replying to troll threads before they are closed, it gives me a feeling of standing on the edge of imminent apocalypse.

Troll thread?

Moderator Action: The moderators will decide what is a troll and what is not. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Anyway, thanks for reminding me that the Greens are also socially liberal. It would become for me a question of "do I vote for an entrenched party (bad) which is less socialist(good) or do I vote for a third party (good) that is more fiscally liberal (bad)?"

 

[Flak]

The most important single issue for me right now is the National Debt and the continuing Budget deficit. This has already decided my vote, which will be for neither of the two major spend-freak-tax-cut candidates running right now.

 

[Stapel]

I doubt one issue could be so important, I would give up others.

Otoh, one issue absolutely could stop me from voting for someone. If I were an American, Bush would probably not get my vore vote for the single reason he mixes religion and politics.

 

[Hitro]

Hmm, one single issue?

I think that is possible, though not likely. I would not vote for a party that wants to abolish certain basic rights, for example, no matter how much they fit my views besides that.

 

[The Yankee]

Let's see...I'd be more likely to vote Republican this time around if I knew there was a concrete plan to get out of Iraq. I know, Kerry hasn't voiced his plan very much...on that issue, it goes down to more of the same versus a chance of something new.

I'd also vote Republican if the candidate wasn't seemingly solely driven by huge tax cuts. Maybe in the long run, taxes could be lower but right now, with rising costs due to war and the way the tax cuts are structured (more supply side than demand side), I'd rather not have someone blow away so much of the revenue that could go towards paying the debt and the military actions (rather than just borrowing it so we can delay inevitable punitive taxes just to pay it off).

I'd also like a more socially liberal candidate. No changing the Constitution just to keep gays from marrying/civally unionizing.

Those are probably the biggest issues that would sway my vote one way or the other.

 

[andrewgprv]

The Gay Rights Issue is a huge one for me. The most important by far and I would change my vote soley on the issue.

 

[Hakim]

If my party cooperated with the social democrats I would ditch them foreever.

 

[capslock]

Yes, the war on terror. I will absolutely not vote for someone who thinks we need to pass a "global test" before sending our troops abroad to destroy our enemies. I would not vote for a candidate who would want to (or at least who I fear would) pull out of Iraq prematurely. If the republicans adopted a more isolationast policy, I would look for another option, but probably not the democrats. I am not sure there is anything they can do to get my vote.

 

[test_specimen]

... so have any enemies been destroyed yet? So far no WMD found and no prominent members of AlQuaeda caught doesn't exactly speak for going blindly after a completely unrelated country without international support.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Yes, I would. I pretty much vote Democratic only because of the abortion issue. If the Republicans were to nominate a pro-choice candidate, such as Giulliani, or somebody who is not actively anti-abortion, such as the moderate John McCain, I would switch my party affiliation almost immediately.

Of course, I am more likely to be elected pope than either of those two are to be nominated for President by the Republican Party.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, if the party I was going to vote for suddenly declared it's support for disenfranchising redheads or something like that I would of course change my vote, but otherwise, not likely.

 

[Sanaz]

I will absolutely not vote for someone who thinks we need to pass a "global test" before sending our troops abroad to destroy our enemies.

Wow, I didn't think anyone would bite on that piece of Bush propaganda/misquote. I figured when Bush replied that he wasn't smart enough to understand what Kerry had so simply explained, that he'd lose a lot of votes (he would have lost mine, if he hadn't already). I am independent, but I would definitely change my vote strictly on the intelligence of the candidate. For example, I could never vote for Bush if he can't follow a simple sentence spoken in a debate and understand what it means (and then proudly admit it!).

If it were a personal issue, I would definitely change my vote. Middle East/foreign policy falls in this category, and Bush has completely failed from my point of view. Kerry hasn't gone wrong on any issues that I very strongly support, and where I do disagree I don't care all that much.

 

[capslock]

Yeah, and he didn't really mean "sensitive war" either. HAHAHAHAHAha. You guys crack me up.

 

[downtown]

Not for a federal offical, like President. Being a something of an in-between person, I already disagree with the party I normally support (the dems), mostly on social issues. I doubt that i could be persuaded to vote bush in this election, but I could see myself voting republican other times. I've supported republican senate canidates from Ohio before