Is it better to vote for the party or for the candidate?

Question

After killing some time at work between Christmas and the New Year, and reading responses to questions asked, I am wondering your thoughts about what is more important; voting for the party or voting for the canidate. Will you vote a stright ticket even if you disagree with a canidate your party endorses?

Answer 1

The candidate. You can seldom hold people accountable but you can almost never hold political parties accountable for their actions.
Out of principle, I never vote a straight ticket. Besides, the local candidates face almost unrelated issues than the national candidates. County commissioners can almost never do anything about International politics or higher education but they can impact local schools, roads, and public safety issues.

Answer 2

the only incredibly wasted vote is the single you solid for a candidate you do not desire in place of work. If not the rest, casting a vote for a candidate which you approve of yet has no hazard of winning sends a message to the different applicants approximately what you desire and how you experience. The 1916 Socialist schedule wasn't handed in each and every element over a 50-12 months era because of the fact any candidate counseled it; it replaced into handed piecemeal as voters approved of the suggestions and the applicants took word.

Answer 3

I've only ever voted for the candidate who I believed most closely represented my own values. That meant voting against President Bush in the past, but it now means voting For Mitt Romney.

Candidates don't always hold to the party line. I've had plenty of instances where I felt voting for a Democrat was preferable. It's a question of circumstances. There's nothing wrong with a Democrat voting Republican or vice versa. Free will and making up your own mind are the heart and soul of democracy.

Answer 4

Always vote for the candidate, because you never know what will happen if you don't choose right. I've split my ticket up because of moderates plenty of times. Heck, they might even change party later. It's happened. I never just vote down the line, because you could end up with the opposite of what you want if you get a very strange character on the ticket.

Answer 5

Party. Although candidates can have better views than opponents sometimes, nearly every president, save maybe clinton and FDR, has bent to the will of his or her party, or has always been under it. The fact is, unless your party has a moron (heres to the 2000 republicans) running, vote your party.

Answer 6

I used to vote for the particular candidate, so my ballot would have selections that were Democrat, Republican or any number of third party or independent candidates. Now I vote for the party, because I don't like throwing my vote away just to prove a point, and the parties are far more polarized than they used to be. Did you know, for example, that at one time there was a branch of the Republican Party that was liberal? What happened to them?

Answer 7

I used to vote the straight party line. Now I realize that there isn't any real difference between the parties. They both believe in Big Brother government. They both believe that it's more important to protect the government than it is to protect the American people. They have both sold us out!

I may not have a choice, but to vote for a Dem or a Rep, but I'm voting antiincumbent. And I'm voting for the candidate that is the most anti-Big Government.

We cannot trust our government.

Answer 8

The Candidate! I don't know of anyone who completely agrees with the party they are registered with. I do know a lot of people that vote straight tickets, but they are usually uneducated about the individual candidates.

Answer 9

In my opinion I think it is better to vote for a candidate rather than a party. In my view that is almost as bad *though not quite* as deciding to vote for someone based solely on say a name. *imho, HUCKABEE does not sound very presidential, but if his views match mine will that stop me from voting for him...no, and it shouldn't*

You should look at the person, their standpoints on the issues at hand, their policy ideas etc, and make your decision that way. Taking only in small account their party.

Answer 10

The party, because ultimately the final say over whether the candidate stays or goes is up to the party.

If you want a president who isn't going dominate party politics and is willing to bow to the whim of his party's authority, then you should probably look for a party that is willing to oust it's current representative if they feel that representative isn't representing the true values of that party.

NOT a party that is fearful of ousting it's leader out of fear of appearing weak or - shockingly - WRONG.

Although of course, fear of appearing weak is a weakness in itself.

Essentially i'm saying that a party that is willing to accept that their current representative is wrong would be more stable party, one that is capable of solidarity on an issue or problem.