Why support Candidate A over Candidate B?

[Holmes]

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

So you'd want me to vote Liberal in a really tight NDP-Tory marginal where the Liberals poll 1-3%?

Sure. Stay true to your convictions. Why choose the "lesser of the two evils" when you have someone you fully agree with, or agree with the most?

Why ? Because it is more useful.

Yours seems not to be a very rational way to view things.

Really? Reeaaally? I'd be the one voting for who I really want to and you'd be voting for someone or a party you probably dislike, only because it's a "close race", and you call be irrational. At least I'd be satisfied with my choice. I guess that's more important to me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

So you'd want me to vote Liberal in a really tight NDP-Tory marginal where the Liberals poll 1-3%?

Sure. Stay true to your convictions. Why choose the "lesser of the two evils" when you have someone you fully agree with, or agree with the most?

Why ? Because it is more useful.

Yours seems not to be a very rational way to view things.

Really? Reeaaally? I'd be the one voting for who I really want to and you'd be voting for someone or a party you probably dislike, only because it's a "close race", and you call be irrational. At least I'd be satisfied with my choice. I guess that's more important to me.

How so ? Voting is about trying to elect someone, not about asserting your political views. You assert your views during debates, but shouting in the streets, by joining a party, by whatever you want. The goal of voting is to choose among the options the one which you want to win. When a candidate really has no chance of winning, discarding him is a perfectly sound and logical choice. Especially when the race between the frontrunners is legitimately open and your vote might actually make a difference.

Voting rationally means maximizing the probability that your vote matters.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I usually carve off the candidates who are too extreme on either end of the spectrum.

Then I look at the state of the country: How are we doing? Who's got control of the Senate and the House? Will we be looking at a deadlocked Congress? Will we need a consensus-builder?

At this point, I usually try to decide whether the candidate's ideology will actually matter, or if I could maybe afford to support a Democrat. That decision will either limit my choices or expand them.

Then I look to see who is qualified to be president and who I think has the best leadership skills.

Then I choose a candidate.

In 2008, this process led me to Hillary Clinton. When the field narrowed and she was no longer a contender, I ran the candidates through this criteria again and immediately eliminated Barack Obama. He was not a consensus-builder, was not going to be a good leader, had policy stances that I did not think would benefit the country, and was not qualified to be president.

In 2012, choosing Mitt Romney was easy. He was my second choice in '08.

[Maxwell]

I might see your point, but there is no way im voting for Romney in any circumstance, so I'd rather vote for someone i believe in than someone that could win, especially since Romney might be one of the most atrocious Republican nominees ever.

[Lief 🗽]

Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't.

You need to read the constitution, bro.

Anyway, no one ever wins an election by only one vote, so vote for Romney, vote for Johnson, don't vote at all, it doesn't really matter.

[SPC]

Romney and Obama's views on corporatism, drug prohibition, extrajudicial killings, health care, indefinite detention, government secrecy, privacy rights, police statism, internet censorship, inflation, foreign interventionism, executive fiat, and taxation are virtually identical. Johnson, while a sure loser, at least allows me to vote against these grievances.

[stegosaurus]

I can't think of one sensible reason to vote for Romney instead of Obama. Obama is an inept, ineffective President and Romney is a depraved plutocrat - no thanks.