Do you vote because you believe in a politician or because you don't want the other guy to get in?

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.

This year, I don't like the alternative; in past elections, I've voted for the candidate rather than against him.

'None of the above' has the potential for creating many problems with no obvious benefits.

If we don't like the choices, we should become more active and agitate for better.

I vote for the candidate that makes the most sense an d has the best ideas, that's why I am voting for Ron Paul for president of America.

I would vote for the lesser evil if I stilled believed there WAS a lesser evil....However, comparing Obama and bush, there is no differnece but appearance. I cant tell much difference in policy at all besides image. In some ways he is MORE hawkish than Bush, especially if we go to war with Iran.

Since there is no lesser evil, Im not voting in 2012. MAYBE a protest vote for a third party who wont win, but not for either party.

Both ways. Sometimes, I wish we got the choice of voting "None of the above"

the only politician I have ever voted "FOR" in my life is Ron Paul. all the other times i was voting against the other guy.

i prefer ron paul. we,re gonna get obama, unless i miss my guess. people don,t often change horses in the middle of the stream. jimmy carter got axed, but he was facing a very strong republican contender in reagan. obama is an exceptionally strong speaker. that counts. people want bullcrap, and reassurance. obama has that in spades. if economic forces cause the economy to tank; we might get romney. politics is interesting, if not frustrating.