One reason voters

[h.g.Whiz]

I think its messed up to vote for a president because he promises to lower taxes. I hate to think that the someone could get elected into office because of some make-believe chump change. People constantly say vote no matter the reason what, but most people either don't have time or don't feel like keeping up election details but since they are convinced that any vote is better than no vote they find a find reason to vote. I say if you know you haven't kept up with the election that much please don't vote.

[Tricky]

In my experience, one-issue voters are mostly concerned with abortion, immigrants or making the US a "Christian nation". I don't know any Obama supporters who are for him simply because he will lower taxes. Indeed, the people who keep harping on taxes seem to be the Republicans, who are worried he will raise them (or return them to pre-Bush levels.)

I see Democrats as more concerned about ending the Iraq War, getting some decent health care, easing the economic crisis, putting more emphasis on the environment (my own personal favorite), getting our privacy back from Homeland Security, cutting back on corporate welfare... well many issues. I really don't know any one-issue Democrats, though I'd guess there are some pro-choice people who come pretty close.

Overall, though, they seem more informed than those who worry about who Obama goes to church with or who he does charity work with or where he was born or what his religion is.

So I guess I agree with you.

[gdnp]

You can add gun rights.

[dirtywick]

The both promised to lower taxes, so even if that is your one issue you could flip a coin and get the same results.

[Darat]

Yep - higher taxes! :)

[dudalb]

There are plenty of one issues voters on the Left wing of the spectrum as well. Don't forget that quite a few on the left had a fairly heavy flirtation with Ron Paul because Paul was anti Iraq War.

[Cain]

I don't see how the original post is an argument against single-issue voting. It's more of an argument against voting solely on (so-called) tax cutting and

It's also amusing to see Dudalb sacrifice more of his dignity to desperately prop up some sort of balance.

In my experience, one-issue voters are mostly concerned with abortion, immigrants or making the US a "Christian nation".

People tend to agree with the Democratic Party (or at least what the Democratic Party claims to believe) on most "bread and butter" issues. Pat Buchanan explained single-issue voters/wedge-issues quite well in a documentary on the 2000 election. He was covering 30 years of electoral politics, states' rights in the south, busing in the northeast, the three Gs (God, gays, n' guns) and abortion.

I suppose most people would intuitively think it would be difficult to hold this kind of coalition together, especially considering the Republicans' failure to get rid of abortion. The problem is Democrats do not hold the Democratic party accountable. If you had constituencies more committed to single issues, groups who could swing significant votes, then you would see a lot more action. Since Democrats do not have a clear hierarchy of values -- "universal healthcare would be nice," "helping the environment sounds good," "the Iraq war was a bad idea," you don't get much movement. Notable exceptions are old people who want to keep social security and the Israel lobby.

[gtc]

I don't see how the original post is an argument against single-issue voting. It's more of an argument against voting solely on (so-called) tax cutting

True. I haven't heard a convincing argument as to why it is necessarily wrong to decide who to vote for on the basis of a single issue.

It's also amusing to see Dudalb sacrifice more of his dignity to desperately prop up some sort of balance.

There was nothing wrong with his point; it even addressed the thread title better than the OP.

[leftysergeant]

True. I haven't heard a convincing argument as to why it is necessarily wrong to decide who to vote for on the basis of a single issue.

So let the sea waters rise around your ankles in Kansas because you don't like income taxes.

Got it.

[h.g.Whiz]

I don't see how the original post is an argument against single-issue voting. It's more of an argument against voting solely on (so-called) tax cutting


I don't know anyone that really votes any other way, but that don't that they don't exist. I almost named the thread "Voting solely on (so-called) tax cutting" The reason I didn't is because my frustration isn't really with voting solely for lower taxes. Its with voting based on one simple issue only. Its not enough to vote for someone who can calll ONE play that we WANT. We need to vote for someone who can EXECUTE numerous plays that we NEED if not then lets rename the Executive Branch to the Ineffective Branch.

[leftysergeant]

I don't see how the original post is an argument against single-issue voting. It's more of an argument against voting solely on (so-called) tax cutting

T

Single-issue voting is narrow-minded. Sort of like killing the rattlesnakes without also dumping the scorpions out of your boots.

[gtc]

Got it.

No you haven't.


If you want to argue that determining your vote on the basis of a single issue is wrong either in general or in a specific case, then you have to actually mount that argument.

You have simply argued that one single issue ought to be more important than another single issue (and that is putting a generous interpretation on your post).

[peptoabysmal]

I think its messed up to vote for a president because he promises to lower taxes. I hate to think that the someone could get elected into office because of some make-believe chump change. People constantly say vote no matter the reason what, but most people either don't have time or don't feel like keeping up election details but since they are convinced that any vote is better than no vote they find a find reason to vote. I say if you know you haven't kept up with the election that much please don't vote.

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, please don't vote."