Posted on Jan 30, 2016
How important is electability in your primary election decision?
4.41K
32
22
4
4
0
You believe that Candidate X of your party best represents your values and would make the best president. But you also believe that Candidate Y is more likely to actually beat the opposing party's candidate in the general election.
Do you vote for Candidate X, because you think he is better, knowing he may likely lose, or go with Candidate Y with a better chance to win the White House?
Do you vote for Candidate X, because you think he is better, knowing he may likely lose, or go with Candidate Y with a better chance to win the White House?
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
If there is not someone on the ballet that I support, I will do write in vote. I am not going to vote for someone I don't agree with, just because they are more likely to win.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
Electability is an elusive issue LTC (Join to see). Pundits pontificate about electability with no firm knowledge about it.
I do my best to research the candidates and vote for the best among them.
I do my best to research the candidates and vote for the best among them.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F. i agree it's hard to get a sense of electability. What spurred my question was I was watching an interview with a group of undecided Iowa voters today. This one person said that she really felt Ben Carson"spoke to her" but she just didn't think he had much of a chance to win in the fall, so she was thinking about Rubio, because he seemed like he had more of a chance to win.
I guess in a way it's the same issue as voting for a third party candidate knowing they have no chance to win.
I guess in a way it's the same issue as voting for a third party candidate knowing they have no chance to win.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Excellent question.
Now, it's not however I have considered it in the past. There were points where I said "X was/is not a viable candidate" and that dissuaded me from supported for them.
Now, my philosophy has switched to "This is MY vote. I don't care who is elected. I don't owe MY vote to anyone." I would rather the tallies show a "true" representation of voter desire than the false dichotomy of Red v Blue. I think there is a lot of "Purple" and if we were actually able to represent that with Votes to other candidates (even if they are not "viable") we can change politics.
Now, it's not however I have considered it in the past. There were points where I said "X was/is not a viable candidate" and that dissuaded me from supported for them.
Now, my philosophy has switched to "This is MY vote. I don't care who is elected. I don't owe MY vote to anyone." I would rather the tallies show a "true" representation of voter desire than the false dichotomy of Red v Blue. I think there is a lot of "Purple" and if we were actually able to represent that with Votes to other candidates (even if they are not "viable") we can change politics.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I vote for the candidate in the primary that I think would do the best job. What is the point of voting for someone inferior in the primary just to beat someone else in the general election that you also don't like?
When it comes to the general election, if your candidate didn’t make it that far, you should vote for the lesser of the two evils to limit the damage to the country.
But if there is a candidate that you really like you should support him/her until the bitter end, IMHO.
When it comes to the general election, if your candidate didn’t make it that far, you should vote for the lesser of the two evils to limit the damage to the country.
But if there is a candidate that you really like you should support him/her until the bitter end, IMHO.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Capt Seid Waddell - Until he grew older and fell under the influence of his much younger wife, he did go astray then.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MCPO Roger Collins, I think it was early stage dementia. He became a liberal in his declining years - a clear sign of mental malfunctioning.
If it could happen to a mind like Barry Goldwater's or Ronald Reagan's it can happen to the best of us.
If it could happen to a mind like Barry Goldwater's or Ronald Reagan's it can happen to the best of us.
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MCPO Roger Collins, true so far as we know, but he clearly had dementia in the end. I think a lot of his loyal staff kept that from the press.
It can happen to the best of us.
It can happen to the best of us.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Ordinarily, I wouldn't concern myself with electability. I want the best candidate for the position. However, when confronted with an opposing slate of candidates who have excellent electability although no other redeeming value, it does become an important consideration.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT Jack Durish, the problem with voting for electability is that you are voting for who you believe other people like rather than for who you like; that is a subjective judgment call at best. A vote for electability is a vote against your own choice, when you stop to think about it.
It is more honest in my view to just vote for the person you think would do the best job. Your vote is your opinion, and it is worth just as much as anyone else's opinion under the Constitution.
If you are in the minority you have to make do with whoever the majority selects, but it would be the result of an actual vote - not a self-defeating vote based upon your imagination of what the actual vote might be.
It is more honest in my view to just vote for the person you think would do the best job. Your vote is your opinion, and it is worth just as much as anyone else's opinion under the Constitution.
If you are in the minority you have to make do with whoever the majority selects, but it would be the result of an actual vote - not a self-defeating vote based upon your imagination of what the actual vote might be.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Just talking to The War Department tonight about the Iowa Caucuses in two days. We're both still kinda undecided, but we agree that our votes should be for someone who is ELECTABLE. We like several folks for different reasons, but if those individuals can't win because they are too far down to look up, a vote for them is just like throwing it away or not showing up to caucus. And 2016 is too momentous an election to screw it up at this initial level.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It's a damned good question. And unfortunately, it represents a serious weakness in our system especially in this modern climate. (Information is exchanged in real time, including all manners of character assassination, disinformation, etc. And the favored means of exchanging information seems to be memes. It's not a system that encourages deep and critical thinking.) Electability often represents the survival of the milquetoast.
In my estimation, the entire thing can be cured with a Presidential runoff election. Any number of candidates could run, and all be voted for, in November. Then in late November or early December, there would be a run-off election for the top two vote getters from the general election. This would allow people to vote for the candidate they really believe in the first time, without worrying if their vote might be wasted on a "less electable" candidate.
Such a run-off election would also have the effect of breaking the stranglehold the two major parties have on the Presidential selection process (not to mention the pundits). It would give the Tea Party and the Green Party just as much of a seat at the table as the Republicans and Democrats. It could also be used to replace the electoral college, an institution that continues to exist mostly because of tradition.
There are a number of things that could be done to overhaul our Presidential election system (I have lots of ideas), but this one by itself would completely change the way parties and primaries do their stuff, and it would remove any voter anxiety due to a favored candidate's perceived electability.
In my estimation, the entire thing can be cured with a Presidential runoff election. Any number of candidates could run, and all be voted for, in November. Then in late November or early December, there would be a run-off election for the top two vote getters from the general election. This would allow people to vote for the candidate they really believe in the first time, without worrying if their vote might be wasted on a "less electable" candidate.
Such a run-off election would also have the effect of breaking the stranglehold the two major parties have on the Presidential selection process (not to mention the pundits). It would give the Tea Party and the Green Party just as much of a seat at the table as the Republicans and Democrats. It could also be used to replace the electoral college, an institution that continues to exist mostly because of tradition.
There are a number of things that could be done to overhaul our Presidential election system (I have lots of ideas), but this one by itself would completely change the way parties and primaries do their stuff, and it would remove any voter anxiety due to a favored candidate's perceived electability.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google