What is your approach to voting?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:04:48 -0500

How do you vote? No, I’m not talking about voting up or down here on RP and I’m not asking if you vote democrat or republican. What I’m asking here is what is your mindset when you go to place your vote in political elections? Do you look for a candidate that promises the most advantages for yourself and your personal interests, or do you take a more macro outlook and vote for who you believe is best for the nation as a whole? Do you differentiate between those two views or do you see both sides of that question being the same for you? Do you have one single “issue” that dictates who you will vote for, or do you try to take a balanced approach?

I ask all of these questions because with the upcoming Presidential election in the news a lot many of the people in my life have been discussing these topics, and I’m curious to see what a more veteran viewpoint might be. What is your approach to voting?

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Nov 13 at 2015 12:07 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:07:09 -0500

I vote for who is best for society as a whole, even if that means voting against my own self-interest. I also tend to vote based on character first, and policies second. If I agree with someone's policies, but I detest them personally, I won't vote for them.

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Nov 13 at 2015 12:12 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:12:10 -0500

The problem with voting unfortunately is that we have people with no income casting equal vote as people who work 80-120 hrs. If you don't contribute then why do you have a say? If you are in the country illegally why are you voting? Why are the democrats stacking the electoral vote with immigrants in regions they need more votes? How can any reasonable human being possibly say that you don't need an I'd to vote when you need an I'd to even collect and cash your welfare check??( democrats)
All these issues and many more but thank God our forefathers set up this system of government in such a way that we have the right to vote and all corruption aside it still is better than most of the world.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Nov 13 at 2015 12:20 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:20:25 -0500

i'll vote for a candidate who has a chance to win that is closest to my views. I don't believe in throwing away a vote.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2015 12:59 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 00:59:58 -0500

I vote for the person (not the party) that I think will do the best job for the country - so, since I don't participate in the party line voting my vote doesn't count. The Presidential elections are not picked by the popular vote (everyone who votes) the winner is picked by the Electoral College. I believe we should abolish the Electoral College; instead we should create the Instant Run-off Voting system. The process would eliminate the Electoral College problem and eventually the two-party system would reform itself. Because voters will be given a natural confidence when voting for a third party candidate (as many do anyway, despite the lack of confidence), third party candidates will slowly but surely begin to emerge with a growing recognition and chance of victory. This is a very important and positive effect of reform, considering that over the past half century, more and more voters decide to choose a third candidate, voting outside of the traditional two-party system. The two major political parties no longer have to ability that they used to have to connect the voter to his everyday political concerns and beliefs. As a result, over the past decades, the American public has been drifting from the two major parties, leading to the most important phenomenon of the past 40 years in American politics: the rise of the independent voter. We should definitely recognize this as supporting the fact that several Americans no longer identify with Republicans or Democrats. In order to keep our democracy alive and thriving, we need to follow the trend of the public, letting all voices be heard by abolishing the Electoral College.
Reform would introduce new parties (such as the Veteran’s Party), undermining the long-standing and confining two-party system and would most likely require the well-adjusted parties to amend their presidential campaign strategies, among other things. Not to mention the lack of self-interest necessary to institute a system to promote equal representation via one-man, one-vote. There is no reason to believe that either party would be willing to exchange a nearly exact campaign science when that exchange would mean a necessary modification of that science. Also, reform would mean a possibility that either party would lose control of the presidency to a third party for four or more years.
Congress has considered more bills concerning the Electoral College (over 700) than on any other subject. All of these bills are introduced by Congressmen. Plus, there continues to be very high support for Electoral College reform from both the public and prominent representatives.
By our Congressmen, and effectively by our neglect to hold them responsible for their actions. We have to take our duty to hold our elected officials accountable to us more seriously. If we disapprove of our representative’s actions and votes, it is up to every man and woman to write letters, call and, if necessary, vote out of office those that neglect our concerns. Congressmen, and all representatives, should feel and know that by ignoring public concern, they will risk their jobs. Additionally, committees in Congress often turn into graveyards for reform bills. Oddly enough, committee assignments are a matter of seniority, placing the most politically powerful Congressional leaders in committee roles. Therefore, these politicians have an even more well-developed reason to (and chance for success in) actively blocking Electoral College reform.
By bypassing the desire to push a certain type of reform, the movement can transform from a fractioned one to become more united. If reformers focus instead on their collective desire to better our arcane voting procedure, we can get a bill passed to abolish the Electoral College. We have to concentrate on putting the pressure on our representatives and holding them accountable for their actions if they fail to respond to public dissent of the Electoral College.
Direct Election with Instant Runoff Voting:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for Presidential elections with or without the Electoral College. With a direct vote, voters would rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. Then, when the votes are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The ballots are then counted again, this time tallying the second choice votes from those ballots indicating the eliminated candidate as the first choice. The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority, reducing time and money wasted in a normal runoff election.

Instant runoff voting on a national scale has the potential to solve many of the current dilemmas introduced by the Electoral College as well as the problems introduced by some of the other alternatives. It would end the spoiler dynamic of third party and independent candidates and consistently produce a majority, nationwide winner. It also allows voters to select their favorite candidate without ensuring a vote for their least favorite (as often happens when the spoiler dynamic is a factor and a voter prefers a third candidate the most).

Individual states can also adopt instant runoffs without a Constitutional amendment. Unlike proportional allocation, which could be unfair if only used in some states, IRV would not have negative consequences if only adopted by a few states. Each state’s electors would still be appointed through a winner-take-all method, but the IRV states would now be guaranteed to have a winner with majority approval. IRV would be best instituted without the Electoral College though, so that the winner would not just enjoy a majority within any state, but within the entire country.

But of course this is just my two cents, in accordance with the 1st Amendment.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2015 1:14 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:14:59 -0500

I think if Plato knew about American politics he would have replaced the first statement of his thesis if vote for one team you will be governed by your inferiors. I agree the real questions should be do you vote on the issues and the merit of the candidate to uphold the platform they are running on? I find the American way of choosing a team as if it were a Sunday night football game problematic. It means you filter your candidate based off of a label, and may chose to disregard the merits and agendas of the candidate.

Once I believed that as military guy I should vote for the GOP. Then I realized that the party who once championed the military has not shown it by there actions. They scream spend more on defense. What that means is cut back the blue suitor and replace it with the grey suitor, ie the gov contractor.

As I made the last statement you might have assumed I switched teams. Nope I just became their worst nightmare. If we want you treat this as a game than I become a referee, agnostic to either side and only support those I feel worthy my vote. If you look at my ballot you will never know what political party I belong to because it has votes to candidates both left and right. Then you will know I have no team, no one vs the other. My team is the entire nation as a whole and I chose my candidates that will do best for our entire nation and not one disenfranchised group vs one super privileged over another. I look at the average mean at what will be better for a nation as a whole.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Nov 13 at 2015 1:38 AM

PVT Robert Gresham — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:38:28 -0500

SGT Private RallyPoint Member Just to inject a bit of humor into an otherwise very serious discussion.........

(And Yes, I do vote !!)

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Nov 13 at 2015 1:38 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:38:45 -0500

Great discussion topic. I vote for whoever is for the "little guy"

Response by PO1 John Miller made Nov 13 at 2015 2:11 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:11:37 -0500

Most importantly, I vote.
But to answer your question in more detail, I vote for the person regardless of party who I feel will do the best job. I have never voted a straight party ticket.

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Nov 13 at 2015 2:49 AM

LTC Eric Coger — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:49:32 -0500

100% character and values of the person for executive positions and mostly party lines for legislature. And that is based on the expectations of the positions. It is hard sometimes. This year, the top two candidates for both of the major parties have either character issues or qualification/experience issues. So, sometimes I just vote for the lesser of two evils...

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Nov 13 at 2015 7:09 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:09:03 -0500

For the last several years I pick whoever is not an incumbent that I like the best

Response by SFC Stephen King made Nov 13 at 2015 7:12 AM

SFC Stephen King — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:12:22 -0500

How I vote or have voted is based on my core values and beliefs if a candidate resonates with what my philosophy is I look at their past and consider it as a benchmark of what is to come.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2015 7:14 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:14:57 -0500

I put my 25% of my energy on national "voting", but most of my energy is on local. :) Local elected official have far more impact than anything the national can throw at you, and the local can always counter the national too if your senator fail to do anything.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Nov 13 at 2015 8:24 AM

LTC John Shaw — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 08:24:28 -0500

SGT Private RallyPoint Member I vote based on who is acting based on American interests, not world's or societies or party interests, we have Constitutional principals that must be our guidance and a dash of realism because all candidates seem to be far from the mark.
I am a fiscal conservative, I have not seen a candidate keep their promises since Reagan, the first Presidential election I was able to participate in. I am a social conservative as well, but this alone will not drive my vote.
I have and will continue to vote against my own personal interests if I believe the principals/ethics of the person/candidate/party. I want accountability for both major parties for running up $20T in debt.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 13 at 2015 8:45 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 08:45:46 -0500

I look for people who THINK about the issues. Who aren't afraid to change their minds when presented with new data. I don't want a platter of "good" like a menu. I want a philosophy.

It doesn't even have to be a complex philosophy. Right v. Wrong. Ethical v. Unethical. Constitutional v. Unconstitutional. Good v. Bad. But I want them to be able to articulate it an ANY and EVERY issue that is presented before them. I also want them to say "this is not a government issue." I want them to say that phrase far more often than most do.

I've commented before about members of the community and the fact that I would vote for them because they have the right "attitude" when it comes to Command. They understand that Offices are a Privilege, not a "Mandate" which I don't think a portion of our electorate understands.

That's how I vote. I'd rather give my vote freely to a candidate with no chance, than feel compelled to hand it to someone who thinks they are entitled to it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2015 9:22 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:22:37 -0500

I avoid grouping myself into a political party and narrowing my views and ability to think for myself. I rather take a step back, assess the issue and form my own opinion(s)/view(s) on the issue and go from there. I've been called a Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Tea Partier, amongst some other names - simply by sharing my views on certain issues. I don't understand the limiting yourself concept to just a single party - regardless how poor the candidates are or how out of touch their stance on issues are. It's America though, you have the right to label yourself a Republican or Democrat and i'll support that - but I will always wonder why people limit themselves politically. Politics isn't a sport and the Democrats and Republicans aren't the only teams playing on the field.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 13 at 2015 9:44 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:44:24 -0500

Generally with one hand pinching my nose closed and the other holding back the vomit. I'll leave it to your imagination to surmise how I mark my ballot.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Nov 13 at 2015 10:29 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:29:19 -0500

I vote for those that I feel like will not only benefit the United States but everywhere else as well. The US has a major influence around the globe. To vote for the POTUS is to vote for one of the leaders of the free world.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2015 10:53 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:53:51 -0500

I consider many things when voting, including character, experience, intelligence and of course individual issues.

Issues are if ficus part of the analysis for me as I have many contradictory views that no candidate can cover. For instance, I'm vehemently pro-choice, but also pro-gun. Wi such conflicts, I look at the lobbies and forces for the issue and choose based on which I issues is best situated to defend itself. The NRA being a much more powerful lobby and gun rights being harder to attack politically I am often forced to vote an anti-gun politician and leave it to the NRA to protect my gun rights, knowing that if I went the other way that legal abortion advocates have no NRA and the right to choose woud be in more peril from an anti-choice politician that the right to bear arms is from an anti-gun politician.

My biggest issues are, in order of importance, Supreme Court nominations, separation of church and state, foreign policy, immigration reform and abortion rights. I am social liberal and a fiscal moderate, though I have o n many occasions voted for Republicans including George H.W. Bush for president and Armold Scheartzenegger for governor, twice. In the current cycle I would strongly consider voting for Graham or Kasich if they got the nomination, but could never vote for a candidate l Ike Cruz, Trump or Carson who I see as very dangerous for both their anti-immigrant rhetoric and their overly religious campaign philosophies. On the Democratic side I was hoping Joe Biden would run as I've always liked and respected him, and also like Martin O'Malley, thou his campaign isn't viable in my opinion (he's running for VP, I leaves Clinton and Sanders, and in that choice I woud pick Clinton.

The hard part is a Clinton run against a GOP moderate I,e Graham or Kasich, in which I case I would very carefully consider what was l ikely to happen and also whether or not the senate or house were likely to flip. I woud never vote GOP if the GOP was. Likely to keep both chambers as then there woud, be no protection from the religious right of the Tea Party types legislating religion into law while cutting taxes on those who need to pay them. I'm not particularly fond of Clinton, but I have no doubt that she has the experience and intelligence required, which Trump, Carson and Fiorina (the "Political Outsiders") do not.

In short, it's a difficult process that I take very seriously. I actually was leaning tore Romney early in the 2012 cycle, and woud have voted for him in 2008 had he wo n the nomination. In 2012 however he took a turn to the hard right to try and be more "severely conservative" in response to the religious right candidate Rick "Bible over Constitution" Santorum. That meant that if he was just landing to the religious right in 2012 he was a liar, or that if he had in fact swung hard right, that I could not vote for him for ideological reasons.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Nov 13 at 2015 3:09 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:09:57 -0500

I agree with everyone else. WHO can best represent America? WHO can take us from now into tomorrow, and make the next day better than that? I'm finding this to be in short order with what is out running for any elected office in either party. IMO voting is important, but has lost the "I did my part" feel. It's more towards "who has the most money backing them", and they get elected. I'm waiting for someone who really represents America from color to social economic class, from sexual choice to religious freedom. I don't see that, and it's a shame. It's like going to a change of command, and at the end, the incoming commander says "all policies and procedures are still in effect", or something to that effect meaning the everything remains the same. The voters might change, but who they're voting for doesn't.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Nov 13 at 2015 11:05 PM

SrA Jonathan Carbonaro — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:05:53 -0500

I refuse to participate in the process.
I feel by not voting, and my voice is heard more then if I did vote. To Quote Joseph Stalin.
"It Doesn't matter WHO the people vote for, but Who counts the votes." By the time a politician gets to reach that level of office they have been bought and paid for many times over.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2015 4:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:02:24 -0500

As a general rule due to massive corruption in both political parties, I'm inclined to support third parties unless those third parties are themselves pushing a corporate agenda. I'll make exceptions for Democratic and/or Republican candidates who reject Super PACs, Dark Money and who get most of their funding (75-80% at least) from voters like you and I.

For example, in the current presidential Elections Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson, Donald Trump and Jill Stein are independent enough from Wall Street to warrant consideration. Then I look at where candidates stand on issues like Climate Change, Economic Justice, Individual Liberty and the our role in international affairs. That leaves only two viable candidates, with one (Bernie Sanders) much more likely to be elected and effective once elected than the other (Jill Stein).

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination then the only reasonable candidate (from my perspective) is Jill Stein, even though I harbor little hope that she could be elected or that if elected she would be able to govern well.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Nov 14 at 2015 4:12 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:12:36 -0500

A few thoughts:
1. I vote every opportunity. More so to maintain/prove state of residence than anything else but I still vote.
2. I don't have time or energy to research local and some state level so I vote party line under assumption that the party has put forward good candidates and there is a need to grow candidates up to the national level.
3. I research the issues for national level candidates (Congress, POTUS) and vote for the guy/gal who most closely aligns with my view points.
4. I refrain from most other political activity otherwise for several reasons but mainly because I do not want others knowing my political viewpoints as an active duty military officer. The military best serves our nation when it is and is seen to be apolitical.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 14 at 2015 4:19 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:19:57 -0500

I vote for the protection of individual liberty. That often means voting for a candidate that will not win in order to push party politics toward individual liberty in order to try to capture my vote. I vote even though the chances of being killed en route to the polls (mostly vehicle traffic related) are better than those of my vote swaying an election and probably better than mine being part of an aggregate that does change policy marginally toward freedom.

I do this because our nation was founded by men and women who bled and died to give us the right to vote and to select representatives. Even if I don't think there's much of a chance that mine will have an impact, I owe it to them, and to my children to try. Because the alternatives to voting are far worse. The cartridge box is a much much worse option for everyone than the ballot box. For war does not determine who is right, only who is left.

Response by SSG Joseph Anstee made Nov 14 at 2015 4:46 PM

SSG Joseph Anstee — Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:46:15 -0500

In a perfect world each candidate should want to improve the office they are running for. They may just have a different approach of how to improve it. We should hope that they have a well thought out plan instead of just saying that they plan to fix it. We've all heard that before, like some of the candidates are saying now. Without pushing my opinion, I ask everyone to do your home work and find a candidate that shares many of your own views. That being said, we are sharing this on a military related site so the biggest common denominator should be, we should vote for a candidate that supports the military.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Nov 15 at 2015 4:09 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:09:10 -0500

Several Days before the election or early voting I usually go to my county voting site. I print up a copy of "my" sample ballot.

I then go through each individual and each issue on the ballot. I research them and make a decision on who I feel is the best candidate for that office.

I try to be fair and impartial on my decision making.

However, I must admit that the political arena causes me a lot of conflict based on political agendas and political party rhetoric.

Response by TSgt John Temblador, PI, CIPA made Nov 16 at 2015 1:07 AM

TSgt John Temblador, PI, CIPA — Mon, 16 Nov 2015 01:07:53 -0500

Obama says he is God, mocks the Bible https://youtu.be/eY984VuVk_Q

Obama says he is God, mocks the Bible

Obama read Psalm 46 and attributed what was read to himself, PROCLAIMING HIMSELF AS GOD. Here are a few facts that really drive home that point. At the 9/11 ...