Confessions of a "Single Issue Voter"

March 17th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

Were you one of those who castigated pro-lifers for voting ONLY about that one issue?

Nope.

I'll admit that being single issue year in and year out would make me personally uneasy, but people have to vote their consciences.

[Sabertooth]

Like I said, single-issue voting is generally not healthy.

I would generally agree, but there are times when the moment arises.

[Captain Shady]

I think that Democratic politicians have been running to the Republican party for years to take advantage of growing Republican voting strenght. When the Democratic party is a thing of the past ,the Democratic politicians will still be around and making the rules as new Republicans. Either one or more new parties will arise to the right to challenge the new left-wing GOP.Or maybe America will become a completely one party state.

[Travis McGee]

I'm a single issue voter: Upholding the Constitution.

It's extremely damaging to the Constitution and the rule of law for the feds to turn a blind eye to the breaking of immigration laws by millions of illegals.

We must enforce all laws, or none: selective einforcement only breeds bitter cynicism and eventually disrespect for all laws and finally to anarchy.

What's even worse is to allow millions of illegal alien foreigner to vote freely in our elections, as they do in Kali. If this is not a total sellout of national sovereignty and trampling of actual U.S. citizen's rights, what is?

[Sabertooth]

Last time I saw Republicans with a spine was 1988.

'88 wasn't bad, but I'll take '94's "Contract With America" over the "Kinder and gentler" "1000 Points of Light."

[Mini-14]

I've got FOUR issues: 1) citizen disarmament, aka "gun control", 2) taxes, 3) the Mexican invasion, 4) abortion.

With a total of FOUR issues, I guess that makes me pretty sophisticated.

[Sabertooth]

With a total of FOUR issues, I guess that makes me pretty sophisticated.

I thought it was the Mini-14.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I know what you mean. I'm a single issue voter. Illegal immigration brought me to the Repubs, now I'm let down. I'm not the only one looking at the 3000+ replies on that thread here, plus the spin doctoring that Bush & Rove are doing. I'm upset and I know that Mike Savage said if 2 million people wrote to Pres. Bush...perhaps.........., actually what I've read on the other threads is that people are hoping that Byrd doesn't let this get passed. And Byrd is from the other party. I don't care what party it's from, 245i is bad news for all Americans.

BTW, someone asked, but I'm pretty positive that Saber will be voting for Simon in November. Simon has said he wants stronger borders and is against the Amnesty. I heard him say it on Savage's program the other day.

[Sir Gawain]

I agree.

[Ditter]

You said "fanatics" are the ones that really get things done? Who are you talking about? Fanatics don't get elected, so they don't get anything done.

[NittanyLion]

I think some voters believe one issue is revealing of a politician's overall views. IOW, a candidate who favors gun control will disregard the Constitution on all issues; a candidate who favors abortion does not respect the rights of all people, etc. I'm not sure how right or wrong they are, but FWIW I take a look at all the issues. I vote GOP on the national ticket, but I'm considering going for third-parties in local races (assuming they represent my views).

The one exception will be Arlen Spector, who will NEVER receive my vote.

[Sabertooth]

Fanatics don't get elected, so they don't get anything done.

Well, it kinda depends on if they're a big enough bloc of swing voters.

[Mark]

I was all for GW until that one faitful day.... he wore a suit with a clashing tie! That did it for my one vote.

Where is Ross Perot when ya need him?

[Dr. Frank fan]

[single issue voting not healthy] I would generally agree, but there are times when the moment arises.

Depends on the issue, naturally. In a contest between someone who advocates genocide and someone who doesn't, then by all means let "whether or not they are genocidal" be the single issue which dictates your vote :)

I guess the question is whether you consider immigration matters sufficiently important to dictate yoru vote like that. I guess you do. Well, that's your right. Just don't come complaining to any of us when it turns out that the guy you voted for Because Of The Single Issue Of Immigration turns out to be Charles Manson.

I understand that there are issues people feel so strongly about that they feel the need to magnify these feelings, and communicate them dramatically to politicians, by becoming single issue voters. In some cases (i.e. abortion) it seems to work, because the party gets the message that they had better nominate someone who is Correct on the issue, OR ELSE. This even drifts into the Republican party in a state like California, where they were almost convinced that they should nominate themselves a Democrat like Riordan for governor simply because he's not pro-life and thus wouldn't anger the (presumably) larger-than-average single-issue pro-choice voters out there.

I understand the motivations and forces behind all this, and behind wanting to be a single-issue voter, and to tell everyone that you are.

I still don't think it's a sign of a healthy or informed elecotrate, however. Over time these Single-Issue voters become indistinguishable from No-Thought voters, and eventually the Single Issue which these voters enslave their votes to ends up becoming like a mini-pagan-religion. "I cannot vote for you because you do not honor my god, Pro-Choice, you worship at the altar of his archenemy, Pro-Life, you heathen."

I know, I know, no one says stuff like that, but the effect is the same.

What's wrong with simply deciding these things on a case-by-case basis, again?

[Sabertooth]

The one exception will be Arlen Spector, who will NEVER receive my vote.

Are you a citizen of Scottland?

[Dog Gone]

I wonder if conservatives are the only ones who shoot themselves in the foot over "single issues." I can't imagine liberals vowing not to vote for a Democrat if Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform bill.

I can't imagine Democrat voters punishing Democrat candidates for supporting Bush's tax cut.

"I'm so mad about that tax cut, that I'll vote for a Republican next time." Doesn't sound right, does it?

Even the Green Party isn't comprised of disaffected Democrats. It's communists, anti-globalists, and young people who don't understand the real world.

No, I think it's just us who throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[yarddog]

I am not necessarily talking about getting elected as much as influencing the country's opinion.

For example, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. Another example, although imo, an evil one is John Brown. As much as I dislike him, I admire his single minded determination. In the end he had a lot of influence if for no other reason than he polarized people.

[Sabertooth]

What's wrong with simply deciding these things on a case-by-case basis, again?

Nothing. I might have a different issue next time, or go back to Party Line voting.