Posted on Aug 18, 2016
Should our moral or contractual obligations be our point when voting?
4.78K
14
14
4
4
0
Politics
Morals
Voting
Responses: 5
2
2
0
I vote for myself, and the people within my group. The president represents the will of the "every man". The POTUS is the result of what the nation wants. Regardless of who is POTUS, many can still obtain what they want/need. The journey just may be a bit different.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Anne McGee
I'm not sure what you mean by "contractual obligations", but I vote for God. It's gotten increasingly difficult to do based on the candidates, but it tends to align more closely with the Republican platform.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It should be the same. You know in your gut and your heart who it is that you want to vote for.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
While that is true if we do so and the greater evil wins and how do you maintain your faith in the system. This is a real struggle and I am truly lost in it.
(1)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - Well its like this, voting at the highest level of government only if folly if the system truly is broken you fix it by changing its foundation. This is why voting for congressmen Senators and your state representatives is very important. Remember your vote matters most at the lowest level
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Why does the state make a difference if your vote is based on morals rather than most likely to win? How do you determine that the moral ground isnt the fight ?
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Frankly the idea that "I will vote with my conscience" is a flawed idea, IMO. You should vote in whatever fashion that you decide will make a difference in the country. We all know that unless things get moving in the Libertarian or Green party, there is next to zero chance that either party will get a single electoral vote. But hey, go ahead and feel smug and self-righteous. Hillary or Trump will laugh all the way to the bank. (If your goal is to ensure federal funding for that candidate the next election cycle then that is a different approach that I can support)
As to SSG Ed Mikus , point, he knows when his vote will actually count and when it won't....statistically. This is a lesson every conservative voter in California has had to deal with. Just understand that sometimes the momentum in a state can change in one election cycle. It happened in Virginia.
Remember to vote local as well as national, too.
As to SSG Ed Mikus , point, he knows when his vote will actually count and when it won't....statistically. This is a lesson every conservative voter in California has had to deal with. Just understand that sometimes the momentum in a state can change in one election cycle. It happened in Virginia.
Remember to vote local as well as national, too.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Here's a perspective you may find interesting: http://qz.com/717255/ethicists-say-voting-with-your-heart-without-a-care-about-the-consequences-is-actually-immoral/
I must say, though, I'm confused by what you mean when you say your "contractual" obligations. Do you mean voting for what will most likely help the Army out, because of your membership in it, regardless of any other effect? Do you mean what will most likely help you personally out, regardless of moral considerations? Or is it something else entirely? I would consider the first to be someone who doesn't understand why they should be voting, and the second to be acting selfishly.
I'm reminded of a friend I have who said that the *main* reason he's voting for Trump is because he's convinced Trump will get us into a bigger war, and faster, than Clinton would, and that that would be the necessary grounds for him to seek a waiver to come back into the Army (he was chaptered out as a 2x non-select for promotion from O3 to O4). He's still a friend, but I told him in no uncertain terms that I consider that reasoning to be morally wrong regardless of who he ends up voting for, and that he should find a better rationale for supporting his candidate.
I must say, though, I'm confused by what you mean when you say your "contractual" obligations. Do you mean voting for what will most likely help the Army out, because of your membership in it, regardless of any other effect? Do you mean what will most likely help you personally out, regardless of moral considerations? Or is it something else entirely? I would consider the first to be someone who doesn't understand why they should be voting, and the second to be acting selfishly.
I'm reminded of a friend I have who said that the *main* reason he's voting for Trump is because he's convinced Trump will get us into a bigger war, and faster, than Clinton would, and that that would be the necessary grounds for him to seek a waiver to come back into the Army (he was chaptered out as a 2x non-select for promotion from O3 to O4). He's still a friend, but I told him in no uncertain terms that I consider that reasoning to be morally wrong regardless of who he ends up voting for, and that he should find a better rationale for supporting his candidate.
Ethicists say voting with your heart, regardless of the consequences, is actually immoral
“The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a world view."
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Thank you for the article. But I think it just shows more of the issue at hand. If the candidates of the two party system don't show proof of truly making a positive difference why are we the people just accepting the lesser of two evils? Why not come together and get someone better. Am I being selfish for wanting something better for our nation. We have strayed so far from our founding design;and for what?, I,me,my it doesn't seem that people are fighting for betterment of the nation. Even the self-proclaimed news for revolution people for the most part are just following like lemmings. It sickens me to feel like this.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A single issue voter, which I used to be, when I wore the uniform, money for training was a big factor. How can you keep the peace without training for war?
We were going to the field and shooting 5 rounds a year. We were allowed to have 20 rounds to qualify with the rifle annually.
The only thing that Jimmy Carter could not do was take our pay away and food from the messhall.
We were going to the field and shooting 5 rounds a year. We were allowed to have 20 rounds to qualify with the rifle annually.
The only thing that Jimmy Carter could not do was take our pay away and food from the messhall.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google