Exactly!!

If you think that a polition will ever come along with ALL your views as his policies...sorry but your living in a fantasy world

You make the best of what you DO have to chose from

Like I said, some people find that NO candidate represents ANY of their views on important issues...not that none of them represent ALL their views.

How do you make the best of that situation?

Many elections are on a slightly larger scale. If a particular candidate wins, does it matter whether they win by a landslide, or a close call?

Again....you make the best of what you DO have to choose from

How?

You have x candidates and they're all on an equally bad footing. Do you roll dice?

Well usually when I make decisions in real life there exist choices where I stand to benefit.



How do you weigh say 5 cons against 5 cons against 5 cons against...(etc)?

It's not the same thing.

Dying is inevitable. Voting is only inevitable because a few people decided it should be so.

I wasn't referring to the candidates themselves as cons. What I meant is, say I take into consideration 5 important issues when deciding who to vote for. If all candidates disagree with me on all 5 issues, they all have 0 pros and 5 cons, so there's no seperating them.

It's inevitable because somebody decided to impose it. Death is natural and at this time no human intervention can do anything about it.

I don't understand what you mean when you say important issues are irrelevant. When forced to vote for a candidate their stance on important issues is pretty relevant to me. When all candidates disagree with me that leaves me with no criteria with which to seperate them and decide who is "the best" of those offered.

My feelings exactly. I guess I'll never understand how you choose the best of a set of equally bad candidates.

Then why did you continue to insist that one must pick "the best" candidate when I explained that for many people there is no "best"?

I understand what you're saying. I just don't understand your reasoning.

I understood that you were saying you vote for the "best" candidate, but I didn't and still don't understand how you pick a "best" when they are for all intents and purposes, the same. I don't recall you ever telling me how you can do that.

No 2 humans I have ever met/seen are the same.

Two political candidates who both disagree with any given voter on the issues that the voters uses as criteria to decide who to vote for are for all intents and purposes, the same.

Not for me...because I would then look into their personal attributes to deside which would do the job more effectively.

You explained that you "take what you're given", "pick the best cons" and "weight the pros and cons". You did not say how you could pick a "best" when weighing the pros and cons leaves all on an equal footing, which is what I've been asking in my past dozen or so posts.

Belial...did you read my post? That is how people decide when faced with candidates with similar views on the issues...we have primaries in the US and many of those candidates have exactly the same stand on the key issues. You start looking at their personalities,credibility and experiences.

Yes I did and I don't think it's necessarily relevant, unless such examination reveals a tendency to repudiate on key issues.

Whatever you say.

Maybe we are better off with Belial NOT voting!He obviously wants a
perfect world & we just as obviously DON'T have one Irish

I do vote.

I'd just rather not be forced to.

Grumble,

There is something to what you say. My mother in law (God rest her soul) was a true, dyed in the wool, Blue Collar Democrat, who lived her life in a working class environment. From an early age, she was taught the right way to vote, and did so each election – with only one exception. In 1968, unhappy with Hubert Humphrey’s overly liberal tendencies, she voted for his opponent. Suitably chastised by subsequent events, she never again strayed from the fold. True story!

The reason I tell the story above, is that the only qualification I would suggest would be to change “polarized” to “uncritical”. Many regular voters here in the States don’t leave their comfort zone. Not so much, I believe, because they are particularly passionate about their party’s policies (polarized), but rather because it is easier to vote the same (uncritical) way again than it is to evaluate the differences between the usual two choices.

What are you looking for in a candidate then?

Jseal,

I would consider myself a well informed and thinking voter. I have generally voted for one party because they more represent my views on major issues than the the other side of the political fence.

Once in the senate there was a particular candidate endorsed by the party I follow, whom I detested. I think there were 27 candidates and I made sure I voted for the lot so I could put him last LOL. BTW he wasn't elected :)

I had a lot of satifaction being able to express my disapproval that way.

There are sure to be just as well informed and thinking voters who have opposite views to mine so it is best to get the most representative vote that you can so that you do get a majority view.

It is a terrible shame that people are too lazy, disinterested or whatever to vote. Had Hitler and Japan been allowed to overcome the world you wouldn't be allowed to vote. All those millions of people died fighting to let us be free and such is the apathy that a majority of Americans choose not to.

Let it be said that were it not compulsary in Australia, the same would happen. hitting the citizens in the hip pocket nerve is far more efective than any other method it seems.

Belial,

You are required to vote because it is the law and your duty as a citizen of Australia.

Whilst you have to vote you do not have to vote for people you do not wish for. Just leave the ballot paper blank or write you are all a useless lot of arseholes on it if you want.

I have no idea what sort of views you have or want a candidate to have. Just remember that whatever or whoever we have running the country needs to be able provide for employment, services, defence and all the things you need to make a nation function. Airy fairy notions never seem to make that happen.

Belial run for office yourself as an Independent. :)

"Airy fairy notions"?

What exactly are you trying to imply, Grumble?

Not implying anything but making the comment that candidates who are all het up on one issue tickets or too extreme like

a)
supergreen don't touch anything or cut anything down means that there are heaps less jobs and less resources available to live
b)
build things at any cost - we end up with no natural things at all after a while.

are dangerous and cannot fulfill the needs of the people

the course is in between these extremes.


and the "Land rights for Gay Whales" (yes it is a joke LOL) sort of candidate is Airy Fairy and would do no one any good in parliament.