Single Issue Voters

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm starting to think that they might be my biggest political pet peeve... both left and right...

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Cincinnatus]

I'm starting to think that they might be my biggest political pet peeve... both left and right...

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Yes.  It's definitely not something that I find beneficial.  Far more than one issue that will determine America's direction.  They should be weighing the good against the bad and make their decisions based on the overall set of opinions and morals.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm starting to think that they might be my biggest political pet peeve... both left and right...

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Couldn't agree more, polnut

[TJ in Oregon]

We can't really discuss single-issue voters without mentioning abortion. While it is regrettable that the voice of many voters has been reduced to a single issue, it naturally results from the pro-life abortion position.

Consider the idea that the fetus is a human life such that an abortion is murder. This means that the 800,000 abortions in the US annually (according to Wikipedia) are murders. With such a large number, how can someone who believes abortion is murder not be a single-issue voter?

A lot of people tend to link abortion and capital punishment together because both are life-related issues, often criticizing anti-abortion voters who support the death penalty. But, we execute fewer than 100 people a year in the United States, more than 8000 abortions for every instance of capital punishment. (For the record I oppose capital punishment but it occurs so frequently that it has no effect whatsoever on my vote). In another comparison, there are only about 16,000 reported homicides in the US annually, so there are approximately 50 times as many abortions.

Of course war is also a divisive issue in this country, one that has the ability to tear apart the lives of many. According to Wikipedia, we have had about 1.3 million US soldiers die in all of the wars we have fought combined, from 1775 until “today” (at least partially into Iraq and Afghanistan). We have more abortions than that in two years.

I do not consider myself a single-issue voter even though I am anti-abortion. I am willing to vote contrary to my abortion views if another issue is more important and larger in scope. However, I have trouble imagining what sort of circumstances might ever produce such an issue. I hate to say that all the nuanced attention I pay to the political world, the budget, healthcare, the wars, etc. is largely irrelevant to my vote, but unfortunately it is. I look forward to some future day when this will not be the case, but right now, in the US today, my political views would make no sense at all if I didn’t base my vote solely on abortion. As long as one believes that abortion is murder, the alternatives are self-contradictory.

[phk]

What if a person only does care about one issue?

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life. 

[courts]

Wow, Blue Marokai?

[TJ in Oregon]

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life. 

I completely agree with you. But as a practical matter I find it ridiculous to base a vote off of that issue when there are about 8,000 times as many abortions.

[bgwah]

Wow, Blue Marokai?

He does have an eerily similar posting style, doesn't he?

[Cincinnatus]

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life. 

I completely agree with you. But as a practical matter I find it ridiculous to base a vote off of that issue when there are about 8,000 times as many abortions.

Yes.  But the issues can't be swept under the rug either.  Weigh the options based on several issues and then vote.

[RI]

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life.  

I completely agree with you. But as a practical matter I find it ridiculous to base a vote off of that issue when there are about 8,000 times as many abortions.

Out of curiosity, what do/would you do if both candidates in a race were pro-life?

[Cincinnatus]

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life.  

I completely agree with you. But as a practical matter I find it ridiculous to base a vote off of that issue when there are about 8,000 times as many abortions.

Out of curiosity, what do/would you do if both candidates in a race were pro-life?

He'd vote third party or not at all most likely.

[RI]

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life.  

I completely agree with you. But as a practical matter I find it ridiculous to base a vote off of that issue when there are about 8,000 times as many abortions.

Out of curiosity, what do/would you do if both candidates in a race were pro-life?

He'd vote third party or not at all most likely.

I think you misread my question.

[nclib]

If abortion were equivalent to murder, if that many "murders" were legal, anti-abortion legislators would not have time to press issues such as banning gay marriage and flag burning.

[TJ in Oregon]

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life. 

I completely agree with you. But as a practical matter I find it ridiculous to base a vote off of that issue when there are about 8,000 times as many abortions.

Out of curiosity, what do/would you do if both candidates in a race were pro-life?

He'd vote third party or not at all most likely.

I think you misread my question.

If both candidates are actually anti-abortion (I check voting records if possible to make sure that they truly are and are not just claiming to be anti-abortion), then I consider other issues. I have no rigid hierarchy of other issues that I defer to but rather look at the complete set, along with my perception of the competence of each candidate. I guess this would make me not a true single-issue voter. In practice this only involves a tiny fraction of state and federal races because most of the time the candidates have a clear difference on abortion.

If both candidates are pro-abortion (and equally so) I base my vote off other issues as well. In this case, I will still likely vote for one of the two major parties because I view elections as a choice only between the two viable candidates. I have never voted for a third party candidate because I see that as more of a short-sighted emotional response than actually making a decision.

When the candidates have the same views on abortion, I tend to favor the Democrats a little more when both are anti-abortion and the Republicans a little more when both are pro-abortion because anti-abortion Democrats can at times influence pieces of legislation in ways anti-abortion Republicans can’t (Obamacare is an example) and pro-abortion Republicans can occasionally be useful by voting on judges.

Also, I do not take abortion into consideration for local races like mayor, county commissioner, etc. because those offices rarely if ever have anything to do with abortion whatsoever.

[TJ in Oregon]

Honestly, I do weigh all the issues before voting, but it just so happens that one issue weighs an order of magnitude more than all the others.

[Wisconsin+17]

Cool, a fellow voter at heart. I've had to make the choice between two prolifers, and it's not that difficult. Despite people who call me a 'single issue voter', there's a big difference between having priority for one issue over another.

If both are solid prolifers, then I look at things like their record on public spending, etc. Then I vote for the candidate with the closest to my own views across the board.

[t_host1]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Life is sacred whether they be criminal or unborn.  I myself, find pro-life and pro capital punishment somewhat at odds with each other.  Not to mention, capital punishment cost far more in our legal system then it does to jail them for life. 

 I guarantee you, one is innocent.

  Capital punishment for homicide can be resolved rather quickly with a 3 round, professional polygraft jury. To the ? only if you did or didn't. The degree of guilt would be settled with a second round of the same within a 90 day maximum time length.  No problem

[RI]

While I'm not entirely sure what t_host1 just said, guilt or innocence does not determine the right of someone to kill another person. The unborn shouldn't be protected from murder because they're 'innocent', but because they're people. That should be the point of the pro-life movement.

[Mechaman]

While I'm not entirely sure what t_host1 just said, guilt or innocence does not determine the right of someone to kill another person. The unborn shouldn't be protected from murder because they're 'innocent', but because they're people. That should be the point of the pro-life movement.

Ditto.

[t_host1]

While I'm not entirely sure what t_host1 just said, guilt or innocence does not determine the right of someone to kill another person. The unborn shouldn't be protected from murder because they're 'innocent', but because they're people. That should be the point of the pro-life movement.

by someone elses actions,

Let be forever proclaimed, by here in this Atlas Forum, decreed that, the unborn are poeple. 

Thank You.

Death to evil, 1st, pre. med, rage is punishment for what it is.

[Cincinnatus]

While I'm not entirely sure what t_host1 just said, guilt or innocence does not determine the right of someone to kill another person. The unborn shouldn't be protected from murder because they're 'innocent', but because they're people. That should be the point of the pro-life movement.

Well said.  

I never understood why abortion has become such a huge federal issue anyway.  I should be voting for my state representatives based on part, because of pro-life/pro-choice stances.

[TJ in Oregon]

I never understood why abortion has become such a huge federal issue anyway.  I should be voting for my state representatives based on part, because of pro-life/pro-choice stances.

It became a federal issue because the US Supreme Court ruled that states weren't allowed to ban abortion. Since Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president, the best way to outlaw abortion is by voting for pro-life presidents. The state has a lot of control over minor limitations that can be placed on abortion but the real issue is determined by the feds.

I understand that those people with a states' rights view of abortion are clearly allies to the pro-life cause at this point, that position seems like a strange compromise to me. How could we be okay with outlawing abortion only in some places but not others? Shouldn't murder be illegal everywhere?

[t_host1]

I never understood why abortion has become such a huge federal issue anyway.  I should be voting for my state representatives based on part, because of pro-life/pro-choice stances.

It became a federal issue because the US Supreme Court ruled that states weren't allowed to ban abortion. Since Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president, the best way to outlaw abortion is by voting for pro-life presidents. The state has a lot of control over minor limitations that can be placed on abortion but the real issue is determined by the feds.

I understand that those people with a states' rights view of abortion are clearly allies to the pro-life cause at this point, that position seems like a strange compromise to me. How could we be okay with outlawing abortion only in some places but not others? Shouldn't murder be illegal everywhere?

The taking of life unborn will never be settled by people wearing black robes.

[Cincinnatus]

I never understood why abortion has become such a huge federal issue anyway.  I should be voting for my state representatives based on part, because of pro-life/pro-choice stances.

It became a federal issue because the US Supreme Court ruled that states weren't allowed to ban abortion. Since Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president, the best way to outlaw abortion is by voting for pro-life presidents. The state has a lot of control over minor limitations that can be placed on abortion but the real issue is determined by the feds.

I understand that those people with a states' rights view of abortion are clearly allies to the pro-life cause at this point, that position seems like a strange compromise to me. How could we be okay with outlawing abortion only in some places but not others? Shouldn't murder be illegal everywhere?

   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Damn that 9th amendment and those annoying interpretations