Single Issue Voting - How would you define it?

[SlipperySlope]

I've been thinking about the meaning of "single issue voter" and I've come up with a gedankenexperiment (though experiment) I've been pondering.

Imagine a two-candidate presidential election like this:
"Candidate Pink" basically supports everything you believe in, the dream progressive. You name the topic, they exactly line up with your position. The perfect candidate in every regard, except for one thing. They have this completely out-of-character position that all people of Swedish descent need to either be executed or forcibly sterilized, and implementing this plan is their highest priority if elected. Other than this "quirk", you believe that this candidate will do tremendous good for the country.

"Candidate Purple" is somewhere between conservative and mainstream. He has a platform made up of the same old shit that we've seen since Nixon. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, but no chance of social improvement during their presidency, and a real chance of social damage.

Now, I assume that most readers of this forum would NOT vote for Candidate Pink. My belief is that the bizarre "Swedish Position" completely disqualifies them, and I most likely either cast a protest vote for an independent or not vote at all. I might even have to vote for Purple if the election was extremely close and I could not stand to see the "Swedish Solution" implemented.

Here is my question: By making my decision on this criteria, should I be considered a "Swedish Position Single-Issue Voter"? Should my entire political philosophy be defined by the fact that my conscious dictated that this candidate not even be worthy of consideration?

On the one hand, it is true that my rejection of Pink was made on a "single issue". On the other hand, his position is so unsupportable that I don't think it should be allowed to define my politics.

What do you think?


On Edit: Three responders (so far) have interpreted the above to be a coded reference to abortion. I assure you, that is not what I had in mind, although I find it quite interesting that three people assumed it is.

On Edit Two: Another observation - nobody has yet voiced an opinion on whether I should or shouldn't be considered a single-issue vote under the above scenario.

[sui generis]

1. I am a single issue voter these days

I have to look at events in this order:

1. what benefits me and my family first
2. what benefits society

And try to figure out if there are conflicts between the two.

In my case, my "single issue" is equal rights for GLBT, especially including civil marriage recognized in all 50 states. It is a matter of survival, and so my test is to vote for my survival.

And that means that I would probably vote republican if I thought they offered us a better deal and if I thought they could be believed.

If neither candidate is going to address my issues in a meaningful way, then neither candidate gets my vote in the end, this time. I'll be too busy looking for real estate in Canada.

[SlipperySlope]

14. So in your case...

So in your case you do feel that your position on GLBT qualifies you as a "single issue voter".

How would you deal with shades of grey instead of black and white:

Candidate A: GLBT should be executed.
Candidate B: GLBT should be registered and have to wear tracking collars.

When the world goes mad, do you still try to choose between the lesser of two evils? What if Canada isn't an option, and either A or B is going to be the next president?

Observation: in your case you are personally invested in your "single issue" topic. In some cases (my Swede example), many voters could not have a personal investment but still see the position as unsupportable.

[sui generis]

20. that's a good point and I have a couple of responses

1. doubtful that this scenario would exist, primarily because there is no physiological test that describes "GLBT". It could be birth, choice, sliding scale, or standing-on-head-ass-painted-blue; it is subjective and subject to conjecture, presumption, or just having to take someone's word for it, either way.

2. the answer to your question, if I didn't have any way to get to a freer country is that I would organize resistance - and I'll have to stop right there because of DU rules, but you can be sure it would be resistance in every shade of meaning that implies.

A world where we would just single out people for slaughter based on presumption of gayness, or some other science fiction scenario is a world worth fighting back against. When the world goes mad you can either fight for your ideals or protect your gene line, and if you can do both, even better.

Also a country where those are the only two choices would have plenty of other ills facing it - I am certain that resistance to that kind of a nation would be done by Americans of many colors and stripes, not just GLBT. Odd thing, when scenarios are proposed that we are "rounded up and executed" it is as if gay people live in a vacuum, having just magically appeared there. We are already everywhere. If I were a soldier in the military or police force (and there are many of us) ordered to execute a bunch of gays and their family and friends, it would be the last order that CO gave.

***

Now, the tracking collar thing, I would definitely use that for anyone who ever purchased a W'04 sticker, gave money to the republican party or attends church more than four or five times a week, the entire Concerned Women of America and every member and subscriber of Focus on the Family. Plus the bush twins. I could run with that. ;)

[SlipperySlope]

24. Thank you for your response - N/T

[FreedomAngel82]

2. I call it just plain ignorant

I remember in 2004 a cousin of mine said the only reason why she was voting for Bush was because of abortion. :eyes: I didn't know until it was too late to talk to her because she told after the election. There are bigger things to worry about than what someone else does in their personal life.

[Nutmegger]

5. Yes, a family member voted

for Bush because "he's a Christian".

They listened to what I had to say and left it at. Christian, puh-leeeeease!

[Warpy]

7. You missed a golden opportunity

to tell that family memeber that he is the most UN Christian son of a bitch ever to befoul our government, and then you could have told him/her why.

They've all read their bibles. They know damned full well what Jesus really said. Rubbing their noses in the fact that Stupid does the oppsite every single damned time might just make a difference.

[napi21]

3. I see your point, and you're right, except....

the issue you are talking about is abortion. It is already settled law, and has been for many years! NOTHING in the abortion position DEMANDS that ANYONE have an abortion! In your example, there is a demand for Swedes to be exterminated! THAT's a very big difference!

The abortion single issue voters are trying to FORCE THEIR position on EVERYONE in the US. I don't know of ANY candidate who is trying to FORCE anyone to have an abortion, but simply make it an individual choice!

[SlipperySlope]

8. Very interesting, but not what I had in mind...

I wrote this scenario with something in mind, but I assure you it was not abortion. Yet, two of the replies so far appear to think that this was a veiled reference to abortion.

I think this is a very interesting observation, but I'm not sure what it means.

[mzmolly]

12. What it means is that many on the "Reicht" claim that abortion is murder

and they won't support Democrats because they claim dems support the "murder" of "babies."

[SlipperySlope]

13. The maybe I failed in posing the question...

I tried to just imagine something that seemed completely unreasonable, so I picked killing Swedes. Unfortunately, for some reason most people are reading that as an analogy for abortion.

I thought about "invading canada", but I thought that would be seen as an analogy for Iraq.

I guess my imagination just isn't good enough. :-(

[Joe Fields]

4. I would define it in three words

Narrow World View

[SlipperySlope]

6. But who's view?

Am I guilty of the narrow world view?

Or is the candidate guilty of the narrow world view?

Should I expand my world view to balance the interest of the Swedes against the interest of society?

[Johonny]

11. Isn't it possible

That there are some issues at certain times in history that are so important that nothing else matters. The problem with single issue voters is not that they focus on only a single issue, but the issues they chose. People tend to focus on problems that don't exist or simply don't matter that much. Worse they tend to ignore the fact their single issue canidate doesn't spend a lot of time on the issue that voted on them for.

[sui generis]

21. Here's the problem:

if somebody's issues don't matter to party leadership and the party majority is counting on your vote just because you identify yourself as a straight ticket voter, then it's no longer really representative government.

Don't take the votes of your base for granted. It's what we do and why we're so extraordinarily good at not winning by a landslide.

[terryg11]

9. I'ld wager we have plenty of single issue voters here

when it comes to abortion. If candidate pink was great with the exception that he doesn't believe in abortion at all then many here would probably not vote for him

[mzmolly]

10. I think this post is an attempt to defend "single issue voters" with a

ridiculous analogy, no?

It is not "progressive" to advocate genocide. :eyes:

Single issue voters enjoy being pissed off, one can please them on an issue one day and the next, they cling to some dream party that would only disillusion them, were they in office anyhow.

We had a similar poster here who, one day recently stated "I'm now backing Kerry in 08!" within days he proclaimed "the democrats didn't filibuster, I'll never vote Dem again!"

:crazy:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Vote issues not candidates or party.

There are issues and issues. Some important, some not. Voting for someone only because he/she has a (D) (R) (I) (G) after their name is like betting on a horse because it has a long tail.

[wuushew]

16. How does the worst candidate emerge from GOP primary system?

If single voting between two identical candidates is decided by positions on other issues how does the Republican party always elect the worst person?

Does anti-abortion authoritarianism mesh well with the uber libertarian mindset of flat or no-taxation? How do the paranoid gun freaks end up voting for people who support the Patriot Act and the police state.

Either the human brain is wired in such a way that pulls together seemingly disparate interests or the most evil candidate is the one with the most money and predictably wins. Perhaps representative government has failed. I say bring on more direct democracy like public referendums.

[SlipperySlope]

18. I think you meant "gun nuts"

"gun nuts" are pro-gun, they are "nutty for guns"
"gun freaks" are anti-gun, they are "control freaks"

Thinking about your question some more, I think the answer is that the members of the GOP who are active in the primary do not well represent the overall GOP electorate. Similarly, I don't think that those active in the Dem primary represent the Dem voters as a whole. I don't know which party has a bigger gap.

Either way, both parties have to try to come up with a position that appeals to the masses, whoever they are, and not just to the party faithful.

The GOP primaries are extremely shifted toward the religious right, who have demonstrated they are among the most effective at motivating their base to vote in the primaries. For a constituency to have this role, they have to be large, politically motivated, and led. I don't know if their is any single Dem constituency that can have the same influence.

The "uber libertarians" as you call them aren't even a part of the republican party, so they have about zero influence in the primaries.

[Marie26]

17. Don't think so

Interesting question. I don't think that's a single-issue voter. I think of a single-issue voter as someone who evaluates every candidate against a specific litmus test. And it's not something off the wall like your example, but a valid political issue that every candidate must express a position on. So if you automatically vote for anyone who's anti-gun control, or pro-life, or pro-choice based soley on that position, you're a single issue voter. Everyone will vote against the "Swedish candidate" because that postion is crazy. Like everyone would vote against someone who thought the moon was made of cheese. It's just not a real position. So I vote no.

[SlipperySlope]

19. Good observation...

Ok, if I have an acid test, then I am single-issue.
On the other hand, if the issue is crazy, then I'm normal.

But... If the candidate got this far, there must be a lot of other people who share their position.

So, am I "single-issue" if half the country has gone crazy?

Just thinking about what you wrote, thanks for the food for thought.

[Marie26]

25. I'm curious, what is the point

of this hypothetical? Who is the "Swedish candidate" supposed to represent?

[Greyhound]

22. A question Mr. Slope, have you stopped beating your wife? n/t

[SlipperySlope]

23. I love reductio ad absurdum - N/T

[bleedingheart]

26. Give me a real life election where this situation is occurring...

this hypothetical is a bit to veiled..

In PA, we have Casey running but we also have Pennachio and Sandals running...I prefer Pennachio or Sandals to Casey not only on abortion but on their stance regarding the Iraq war....but as far as I know there isn't any kind of hidden agenda for them...they are just progressive candidates.

Now the republicans run into this problem more often...they actually run Nazi-like people in their primaries against more mainstream conservatives.

[benEzra]

27. Presidential election, 2004, sad to say...

maybe not quite that drastic, but Candidate A promised on his website to outlaw the possession of half the guns in our family's gun safe, told us "if you want to keep your guns, go join the military," and in so doing implicitly promised to send the guys with machine guns and black body armor to OUR door. Worrisome? You betcha. And the fact that he was manipulated into doing so mitigated that only a little.

If you don't think that had any bearing on why union members and registered Dems in pro-gun states like WV--where 80% or more of union members own guns--went 50/50 or worse for W, you're in denial. Do you wonder why K/E lost Edwards' own home state 45%/55% even as our pro-gun Democratic governor easily won 55%/45%, elected by the SAME voters who didn't vote for K/E in NC?

SlipperySlope's analogy is pretty good, actually.

I don't consider myself a single-issue voter, and someone promising to raid my gun safe won't necessarily make me vote for the other guy, but it WILL at least make me leave that spot on the ballot blank...