If so, please give the name of the party and state why you think this is logical.
2007-10-17 17:07:31 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
im assuming the "your" you are refering to is me as an individual.
I think most people do otherwise they wouldn't vote for them...hopefully. however in some cases it is a lesser of two evils...for example in the 08 election if it was hillary VS guliani(sorry for spelling) i can't vote for hillary because she is for socialized healthcare...which if you have studdied history at all yo ushould know it won't work. and she can't be think of the long term good of AMERICA.......so i have to vote for guliani...but i don't think he is right on everything...for example he is pro choice.... where as me i believe abortion (except certain medical emergencies)is murder. because if we ONLY voted for the perfect candidate i think most of us wouldn't be able to vote. i want someone who wont add taxes and can protect us.
2007-10-17 17:17:00 · answer #1 · answered by james s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly why I don't vote strictly by party. The choice isn't that simple. You could have a hundred candidates from any party, and end up with a hundred different ways they'd run things while in office. Much better to decide who's the right PERSON to elect, not blindly sticking with the party you feel is most likely to reflect your beliefs, then rolling the dice and hoping whoever's currently representing that party shares your beliefs. Nothing is 100%, there is no works-for-everything method; decisions need to be made anew for each event.
2007-10-17 17:18:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I do not think my political party is always good and right and actually I have come to the point where I do not even believe in my party anymore (although I would vote for my party over the other one any day)
2007-10-17 17:14:28 · answer #3 · answered by Cookie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No; there is no occupation that is inherently saintly. Although there is a vetting process called an election there are so many opportunities for corruption that anyone could be tempted and cross the line.
The only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that if a Republican is even implicated they are shown the door.
The Democrats keep William Jeffers in office and as committee chairmen despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
The Democrats should clean house before they talk about the culture of corruption.
2007-10-17 17:17:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if we have to look at it in a Controversial way. There really wouldn't be a right or wrong, it's all opinion. I mean even if you "BELIEVE" ( <-emphasize) that your political party is wrong, it is your opinion. I mean what was the point of having a Democratic side and a Republican, all they like to do is contradict each other points, until one group runs out of points and they are the winners and is right. So we would really know, I mean if we were in the parties ourselves and speaking to them, people right now like us would be typing it on yahoo answers saying if you believe them or not, or if they are right or wrong.
2007-10-17 17:49:13 · answer #5 · answered by Extemp07 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. I'm a conservative that votes Republican even though they repeatedly fall short on the promises they make. But the Democrat party is not an alternative for me because they advocate everything I'm against.
I either vote for the Republicans that tell me what I want to hear and then don't do what they said they would, or I vote for Democrats who flat out tell me they're going to steal my money and can't be trusted with the security of our nation. Not much of a choice.
2007-10-17 17:19:04 · answer #6 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Political events functionality an guidance shortcut that lowers the final "guidance expenses" linked with democratic participation. Democracies thrive on guidance, yet regrettably the quantity of awareness mandatory to make counseled judgements is unquestionably overwhelming to maximum electorate. each and every time we bypass to the ballot there are quite a number of applicants for each sort workplaces in state, community, and federal government. The time required to truly learn each and every of those applicants and their perspectives is magnificent. via finding at political association, human beings can vote in accordance with familiar assumptions touching directly to the political social gathering to which the candidate is in contact. This in spite of the indisputable fact that builds bias into the gadget, and perpetuates concepts which could be antiquated or in simple terms no longer genuine. In a manner you need to argue that the existence of political events grants an incentive for human beings to proceed to be uninformed.
2016-10-04 01:46:04 · answer #7 · answered by baquero 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL @ Ruth.
And actually, I would say the very samer thing she did. Except I would say it about the other party.
But ask yourselves how much either party cares about their constituents, once they have gotten their candidate into office and have begun the real business of politics - telling us what to think.
I tire of being disrespected by our servants in Washington.
2007-10-17 17:36:41 · answer #8 · answered by KALEL 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no...
it's more of a "I think they are wrong less" than the other party...
a "lesser of two evils" if you will...
but in the current political landscape, I don't see things changing anytime soon...
2007-10-17 17:29:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I chose the lesser of two evils
2007-10-17 17:16:34 · answer #10 · answered by Jon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋