The responsibilities of a voter (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

I have been trying to frame this topic in my head for a very long time and I always have a hard time putting it into print. I think it is a good discussion to be had, so rather than keep waiting I thought I would just write some stuff and get some help from the board. Obviously there is no one clear answer and set of rules but would love to know how some people form their opinions of candidates and how seriously they take the voting booth.

So I guess a few of the things I think about...

1. Should you always vote regardless of knowledge of candidates, policies, etc or if you dislike both candidates?

2. When do you vote against your own best interests for the greater good? 

3. How should you define the greater good? 

4. How should you evaluate the level of importance of certain policies? For example if one policy hurts ten people but has a great outcome for 100 is it worth it? 

5. What role should the personal life of a candidate play in deciding(if any)? for example one guy once beat his wife but supports most policies you agree with but the other has been a model citizen but supports several policies you don't support. 

6. For primary voting should electability override your opinion of a candidate?

7. Is there any responsibility to inform others of candidates positions or past personal behaviors?

Any other things to discuss are welcomed. I have to head out but will post my thoughts on these questions later. 

 

[Steve Tasker]

I'm not sure I understand the premise - are you looking for people to answer the questions for their personal votes, or to come up with more general questions re: voter responsibility?

 

[MAC_32]

1. Should you always vote regardless of knowledge of candidates, policies, etc or if you dislike both candidates? No.

2. When do you vote against your own best interests for the greater good? If not every time, almost every time.

3. How should you define the greater good? I think the answer to this question is constantly changing and it depend on the subject. High level, problem ID-identify priorities-vett options-problem solve-reassess. But patience and facts are necessary for this process to be effective and our actions specifically over the last couple of decades have lacked both of those vital factors.

7. Is there any responsibility to inform others of candidates positions or past personal behaviors? Yes, but context and facts are necessary in order to consider passing judgment. My answers to 4-6 were similar, so I thought just responding to this one would best convey my perspective.

 

[Van Dyman]

I have been trying to frame this topic in my head for a very long time and I always have a hard time putting it into print. I think it is a good discussion to be had, so rather than keep waiting I thought I would just write some stuff and get some help from the board. Obviously there is no one clear answer and set of rules but would love to know how some people form their opinions of candidates and how seriously they take the voting booth.

So I guess a few of the things I think about...

1. Should you always vote regardless of knowledge of candidates, policies, etc or if you dislike both candidates?

2. When do you vote against your own best interests for the greater good? 

3. How should you define the greater good? 

4. How should you evaluate the level of importance of certain policies? For example if one policy hurts ten people but has a great outcome for 100 is it worth it? 

5. What role should the personal life of a candidate play in deciding(if any)? for example one guy once beat his wife but supports most policies you agree with but the other has been a model citizen but supports several policies you don't support. 

6. For primary voting should electability override your opinion of a candidate?

7. Is there any responsibility to inform others of candidates positions or past personal behaviors?

Any other things to discuss are welcomed. I have to head out but will post my thoughts on these questions later. 

1. No. I don't think people should vote for random people they know absolutely nothing about, including name recognition. BUT...I do feel people have a duty to examine ballots before election day, learn at least a little about the candidates, and make votes that are backed by some kind of knowledge and reason. Disliking both candidates is NOT an excuse for not voting. Pick one, just not randomly.

2. Always

3. I try to think hierarchically - what is best for the long-term continuation of our species, best for the population being polled in the long term, best solution to a pressing problem. Of course, the urgency of a current problem may lend it more weight but that's case-by-case.

4. Depends on the extent of the "hurt". Don't want to push 10 people into death or poverty to improve things for 100 people who are otherwise ok. 

5. I want the best of the best. If forced to choose between integrity and policy, I'd lean integrity. I might prefer the weasel's policies, but can't trust a weasel to follow through or to not create more problems than he solves.

6. No

7. Depends on the person. I know some of my friends will do their due diligence. I know others who won't know anything unless someone tells them.

 

[Quint]

if we're talking specifically about voting for a presidential candidate, the questions posed above carry more weight for those living in Swing States, and much less for everyone else.

for non-presidential positions:

1. No

2. Depends on the issue.

3. Benefit to the most people.

4. It's up to the individual to decide, and depends on the issue (e.g. M4A means expanded coverage, and tax increases)

5. Should be taken into account...why reward someone for being a "bad person" or making bad personal choices?

6. Too difficult to create an objective opinion of "electability" that everyone agrees on.

7. Morally? No. Socially, sure.

 

[jonessed]

I won’t vote on something if I don’t have a decent understanding of the candidates/policy.

 

[timschochet]

I have no responsibilities as a voter. Full stop.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I have been trying to frame this topic in my head for a very long time and I always have a hard time putting it into print. I think it is a good discussion to be had, so rather than keep waiting I thought I would just write some stuff and get some help from the board. Obviously there is no one clear answer and set of rules but would love to know how some people form their opinions of candidates and how seriously they take the voting booth.

So I guess a few of the things I think about...

1. Should you always vote regardless of knowledge of candidates, policies, etc or if you dislike both candidates? Until early this century, i refused to discuss national politics with anyone who didn't vote but now i mostly don't vote myself. I will be a sucker one more time to vote for Da Bootyjudge, even though i believe the process to be largely beyond repair and running for national office to be the equivalent of a criminal act.

2. When do you vote against your own best interests for the greater good? I vote for justice & progress and against corruption. Personal interest or political philosophy is secondary.

3. How should you define the greater good? One should realize that, even though survival is not a day-to-day issue for most Americans, EVERYTHING must still be done as absolutely well as it can be done or people will suffer needlessly. Commitment, citizenship & competence is what we should seek in our candidates.

4. How should you evaluate the level of importance of certain policies? For example if one policy hurts ten people but has a great outcome for 100 is it worth it? 40,000 people (1/3 of them children) die each day on this planet from the simple inability to sustain life. I do not choose between cases but vote for what will move us as earthmembers forward the most.

5. What role should the personal life of a candidate play in deciding(if any)? for example one guy once beat his wife but supports most policies you agree with but the other has been a model citizen but supports several policies you don't support. For most of my life that was none of my business. With corruption such a factor now, though, personal conduct is an indicator of fitness for office.

6. For primary voting should electability override your opinion of a candidate? NEVERNEVERNEVER. The conversion of a sacred trust of conscience into a bet is what has turned politics into what it is today

7. Is there any responsibility to inform others of candidates positions or past personal behaviors? We're all in this together and always have had and always will have the government we deserve.

Any other things to discuss are welcomed. I have to head out but will post my thoughts on these questions later. 

.

 

[The Commish]

I could do a long conviluate answer, but I'll slim it down to starting with my morality and building from there.  I always start with morality.