How important is electability in your primary election decision?

2016-01-30T18:06:27-05:00

You believe that Candidate X of your party best represents your values and would make the best president. But you also believe that Candidate Y is more likely to actually beat the opposing party's candidate in the general election.

Do you vote for Candidate X, because you think he is better, knowing he may likely lose, or go with Candidate Y with a better chance to win the White House?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 30 at 2016 6:09 PM

2016-01-30T18:09:59-05:00

Electability is an elusive issue LTC Private RallyPoint Member. Pundits pontificate about electability with no firm knowledge about it.
I do my best to research the candidates and vote for the best among them.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 30 at 2016 6:30 PM

2016-01-30T18:30:28-05:00

Ordinarily, I wouldn't concern myself with electability. I want the best candidate for the position. However, when confronted with an opposing slate of candidates who have excellent electability although no other redeeming value, it does become an important consideration.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jan 30 at 2016 6:36 PM

2016-01-30T18:36:52-05:00

If there is not someone on the ballet that I support, I will do write in vote. I am not going to vote for someone I don't agree with, just because they are more likely to win.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jan 30 at 2016 7:27 PM

2016-01-30T19:27:36-05:00

Electability is not a consideration for me. In my opinion, choosing someone for their electability means that I'm settling, simply because I am worried that my ideal candidate might not win.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2016 8:19 PM

2016-01-30T20:19:32-05:00

I am not a member of a political party so I don't vote in the primary election. But I vote for who I would like to be the fill in the blank the best.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Jan 30 at 2016 8:28 PM

2016-01-30T20:28:43-05:00

It's a damned good question. And unfortunately, it represents a serious weakness in our system especially in this modern climate. (Information is exchanged in real time, including all manners of character assassination, disinformation, etc. And the favored means of exchanging information seems to be memes. It's not a system that encourages deep and critical thinking.) Electability often represents the survival of the milquetoast.

In my estimation, the entire thing can be cured with a Presidential runoff election. Any number of candidates could run, and all be voted for, in November. Then in late November or early December, there would be a run-off election for the top two vote getters from the general election. This would allow people to vote for the candidate they really believe in the first time, without worrying if their vote might be wasted on a "less electable" candidate.

Such a run-off election would also have the effect of breaking the stranglehold the two major parties have on the Presidential selection process (not to mention the pundits). It would give the Tea Party and the Green Party just as much of a seat at the table as the Republicans and Democrats. It could also be used to replace the electoral college, an institution that continues to exist mostly because of tradition.

There are a number of things that could be done to overhaul our Presidential election system (I have lots of ideas), but this one by itself would completely change the way parties and primaries do their stuff, and it would remove any voter anxiety due to a favored candidate's perceived electability.

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Jan 30 at 2016 8:32 PM

2016-01-30T20:32:32-05:00

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2016 10:46 PM

2016-01-30T22:46:54-05:00

Just talking to The War Department tonight about the Iowa Caucuses in two days. We're both still kinda undecided, but we agree that our votes should be for someone who is ELECTABLE. We like several folks for different reasons, but if those individuals can't win because they are too far down to look up, a vote for them is just like throwing it away or not showing up to caucus. And 2016 is too momentous an election to screw it up at this initial level.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 31 at 2016 12:25 AM

2016-01-31T00:25:02-05:00

I vote for the candidate in the primary that I think would do the best job. What is the point of voting for someone inferior in the primary just to beat someone else in the general election that you also don't like?

When it comes to the general election, if your candidate didn’t make it that far, you should vote for the lesser of the two evils to limit the damage to the country.

But if there is a candidate that you really like you should support him/her until the bitter end, IMHO.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 31 at 2016 8:17 AM

2016-01-31T08:17:56-05:00

Excellent question.

Now, it's not however I have considered it in the past. There were points where I said "X was/is not a viable candidate" and that dissuaded me from supported for them.

Now, my philosophy has switched to "This is MY vote. I don't care who is elected. I don't owe MY vote to anyone." I would rather the tallies show a "true" representation of voter desire than the false dichotomy of Red v Blue. I think there is a lot of "Purple" and if we were actually able to represent that with Votes to other candidates (even if they are not "viable") we can change politics.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jan 31 at 2016 11:46 AM

2016-01-31T11:46:01-05:00

I don't consider electability, I consider the candidates positions, actual action in office and ethical standards. If the candidates don't have ethics I will not vote for any of them

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2016 7:29 AM

2016-02-01T07:29:26-05:00

Principles over electability.