would you still vote for your candidate knowing...

[Dancing Fire]

that he/she will not win?

 

[amc80]

Are you talking about in the primaries or in a general election?

 

[Amys Bling]

yes- I would vote for the person I believe in regardless. Hey- you never know, every single vote counts.

 

[kenny]

Only if the Supreme Court was going to reverse the election results.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Are you talking about in the primaries or in a general election?

both

 

[Enerchi]

I would still vote for my candidate, regardless of their win potential. If they don't win, it still shows they had a lot of support - so it doesn't give the other candidate a 'carte blanche' to do as they please.

 

[amc80]

Are you talking about in the primaries or in a general election?

both

In a primary, if I knew my #1 wouldn't win, I'd vote for the person who I agreed with the most who had a chance of winning. So (totally hypothetical here) say Ron Paul is my first choice, but I don't see him winning in a general election against Obama, I'd vote for, say, Romney, because I think he has the best shot at winning the general election.

In a general election I guess I have the same strategy. I'm going to vote for the person closest to me on the spectrum who also has the greatest shot of winning. So if it's Obama versus Romney, but Ron Paul is running under a 3rd party, I'm voting for Romney. A vote for Ron Paul would essentially be a vote for Obama.

Obviously this would be different if we had proportional representation, but in a two party plurality system sometimes you have to vote strategically.

 

[HopeDream]

Yes. You can never "know for sure" and it in't over until it's over.

That said, I vote in a place with more than 2 major political parties, so a 2nd place party can still hold major influence on government policy, especialy if the winning party doesn't hold a majority government.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Our election process is divided into 2 phases. In the first, candidates from all parties participate. Then, in the second, the top 2 candidates run against each other (unless the first candidate had more votes than all other candidates combined, in which case, there will be no second phase).

In the first phase, I vote for my favourite candidate, unless there is a strong competition between an acceptable and an unacceptable candidate for the second phase. For example, my candidate has 10%, Candidate 1 has 40%, OK Candidate has 25%, Not OK Candidate has 24%. In this case, I will vote for OK Candidate, to have a good choice in the second phase.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

Yes.

Wihout sounding corny, Men and women over centuries have died for my right to vote for whomever I please regardless of their chances to win. I am also a relative of the late Norman Thomas who ran for the presidency for {I believe} 5 times knowing it was futile.

When my son was little and in a stroller I would take hime with me to impress uon him the importance of voting your conscience. We try to watch thr debates and discuss the issues.

 

[monarch64]

Yes, absolutely.

 

[zoebartlett]

Yes, I think I would.

 

[Dancing Fire]

sadly,once again Californian's vote won't count in this primary.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Are you talking about in the primaries or in a general election?

both

In a primary, if I knew my #1 wouldn't win, I'd vote for the person who I agreed with the most who had a chance of winning. So (totally hypothetical here) say Ron Paul is my first choice, but I don't see him winning in a general election against Obama, I'd vote for, say, Romney, because I think he has the best shot at winning the general election.

In a general election I guess I have the same strategy. I'm going to vote for the person closest to me on the spectrum who also has the greatest shot of winning. So if it's Obama versus Romney, but Ron Paul is running under a 3rd party, I'm voting for Romney. A vote for Ron Paul would essentially be a vote for Obama.

Obviously this would be different if we had proportional representation, but in a two party plurality system sometimes you have to vote strategically.

i wanna vote for Newt but don't if he'll make it the Ca. primary. Romney would be my second choice.

 

[LJL]

Eh, I'm kinda blah about voting this time around. The primary wont matter in my state, much like Cali with DF -so my vote seems 100% pointless there. Not sure if I will vote in the general election.. not sure if I like Romney much better than Obama which is funny since I voted for Romney last primary... but that was only because I knew my candidate would be done by the time the votes were counted since I voted absentee (like having sent in your Huntsman ballot already this time around).

I don't think I HAVE a candidate...

 

[lulu]

I did. In 1972 I stood in line to vote for George McGovern even though the tv reporters where calling the election for Nixon. It was my first presidential election and I wasn't leaving without voting.

 

[TristanC]

Yes of course. Isn't that the point of voting?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Eh, I'm kinda blah about voting this time around. The primary wont matter in my state, much like Cali with DF -so my vote seems 100% pointless there. Not sure if I will vote in the general election.. not sure if I like Romney much better than Obama which is funny since I voted for Romney last primary... but that was only because I knew my candidate would be done by the time the votes were counted since I voted absentee (like having sent in your Huntsman ballot already this time around).

I don't think I HAVE a candidate...

please vote for DF...

 

[HollyS]

I did vote for my candidate, knowing she probably wouldn't win, in the last presidential primary.

 

[Dancing Fire]

a big win for Newt in So.Carolina...

 

[partgypsy]

I think this is a very tough question. If there was a candidate that really reflected my views, and it wasn't being represented by either party, a vote for them would be in a sense a wake up call to the main candidates that there is a segment of the population that is not happy with the current choices. However I am pretty mainstream and "pragmatic", in that I want my vote to count in the more traditional way.

But unless you are voting for Bugs Bunny or something, I don't think your vote is wasted, because it still expresses your choice. And realistically, our votes are counted electorally (not say by total majority vote across the US) so you can theoretically argue that many people's votes even people voting for one of the two main parties, are "wasted" because in their electoral district it was not close by that margin, either for their candidate to win, or to lose by.

 

[Skippy123]

For sure!

 

[partgypsy]

I did vote for my candidate, knowing she probably wouldn't win, in the last presidential primary.

Let me guess, Hillary Clinton? (just kidding!)

 

[Dancing Fire]

I did vote for my candidate, knowing she probably wouldn't win, in the last presidential primary.

Let me guess, Hillary Clinton? (just kidding!)

i really like Hillary but too bad she decided not to run.

 

[HollyS]

I did vote for my candidate, knowing she probably wouldn't win, in the last presidential primary.

Let me guess, Hillary Clinton? (just kidding!)

Of course, Hillary. Was there another woman running for office?

Palin was a package deal with McCain; I don't consider that "running", though I guess I should. But let's face it, we aren't voting for Numero Dos, are we, when we take to the polls?

 

[Porridge]

Yes but easy for me to say we use a preferential voting system so I wouldn't waste my vote.

 

[partgypsy]

Sorry Holly I did assume you meant Palin! I guess it just goes to show I shouldn't make assumptions

She is doing an awesome job as Secretary of State, I'm glad she accepted that position and hope she doesn't burn herself out!