Do you vote because you believe in a politician or because you don't want the other guy to get in?
Are you more afraid of the alternative.... or do you really think your candidate is going to be the first honest politician in modern history?
back-question... would you prefer to vote for 'none of the above'?
2012-01-28T07:42:20Z
I wonder what Al means by agitate.... because I really don't like any of the 'choices' I am being given. I think 'none of the above' would give them something to think about... and at least they wouldn't be complacent... but can we risk a wasted vote?
Steve9152012-01-28T03:46:53Z
Favorite Answer
Lately, it's been more voting against someone rather than voting for someone.
Like in 2004, I didn't care much for Kerry, but I knew what a disaster Bush was, so I voted NOT for Bush (Kerry).
In 2008, I voted FOR Obama, but he's been disappointing. But, McCain probably would have been worse.
This year, the Republicans are doing their best to put up a candidate that you have to vote against. It's all pretty disappointing.
BQ- I think they should have "none of the above" as a choice on the ballot. If "none" won, it would be a message to the person who gets the job, that you may be in, but we're not happy about it.
In Finland we are in the middle of Presidential elections and many voters face that exact dilemma. Two men made it to the second round and they are both right wing, a conservative and a liberal. We've had a social democrat president since 1982 so many who don't support right wing parties have a big problem of which man to choose. And propably many of those who vote (many will choose not to vote at all since the options are so crappy) will vote .against. the other guy rather than .for. the candidate they chose.
On both rounds I voted for a candidate who was better than the alternative as there was no such candidate that I really thought would make an excellent president.
In other elections (parlamental, municipal) there are much more candidates to choose from and then I vote for that person from my party that I believe would be the best man/woman for the job.
If the candidate of my choice doesn't win the nomination, I'll vote for the one who will be best for our country, being it's the lesser of 2 evils or what, it's the person for me, not what party he's in. If I didn't vote or had the option of none of the above, I would see it as essentially be a vote for the greater of the 2 evils.
It's always a combination of both. I vote for whomever I believe would be the best president/senator/whatever--that means I like that candidate, but it also means I dislike the other candidates to some extent. It's never just one or the other.
I do try keep some healthy skepticism, though. If you vote for someone you think is perfect, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Take Obama, for instance: extremely popular during the election because of his promises, now not quite as popular because he couldn't deliver on *all* of those promises.