What is your approach to voting?

I vote for who is best for society as a whole, even if that means voting against my own self-interest. I also tend to vote based on character first, and policies second. If I agree with someone's policies, but I detest them personally, I won't vote for them.

I look for people who THINK about the issues. Who aren't afraid to change their minds when presented with new data. I don't want a platter of "good" like a menu. I want a philosophy.

It doesn't even have to be a complex philosophy. Right v. Wrong. Ethical v. Unethical. Constitutional v. Unconstitutional. Good v. Bad. But I want them to be able to articulate it an ANY and EVERY issue that is presented before them. I also want them to say "this is not a government issue." I want them to say that phrase far more often than most do.

I've commented before about members of the community and the fact that I would vote for them because they have the right "attitude" when it comes to Command. They understand that Offices are a Privilege, not a "Mandate" which I don't think a portion of our electorate understands.

That's how I vote. I'd rather give my vote freely to a candidate with no chance, than feel compelled to hand it to someone who thinks they are entitled to it.

SGT (Join to see) Just to inject a bit of humor into an otherwise very serious discussion.........

(And Yes, I do vote !!)

I vote for the protection of individual liberty. That often means voting for a candidate that will not win in order to push party politics toward individual liberty in order to try to capture my vote. I vote even though the chances of being killed en route to the polls (mostly vehicle traffic related) are better than those of my vote swaying an election and probably better than mine being part of an aggregate that does change policy marginally toward freedom.

I do this because our nation was founded by men and women who bled and died to give us the right to vote and to select representatives. Even if I don't think there's much of a chance that mine will have an impact, I owe it to them, and to my children to try. Because the alternatives to voting are far worse. The cartridge box is a much much worse option for everyone than the ballot box. For war does not determine who is right, only who is left.

I vote for those that I feel like will not only benefit the United States but everywhere else as well. The US has a major influence around the globe. To vote for the POTUS is to vote for one of the leaders of the free world.

100% character and values of the person for executive positions and mostly party lines for legislature. And that is based on the expectations of the positions. It is hard sometimes. This year, the top two candidates for both of the major parties have either character issues or qualification/experience issues. So, sometimes I just vote for the lesser of two evils...

SGT (Join to see)
Most importantly, I vote.
But to answer your question in more detail, I vote for the person regardless of party who I feel will do the best job. I have never voted a straight party ticket.

Great discussion topic. I vote for whoever is for the "little guy"

I vote for the person (not the party) that I think will do the best job for the country - so, since I don't participate in the party line voting my vote doesn't count. The Presidential elections are not picked by the popular vote (everyone who votes) the winner is picked by the Electoral College. I believe we should abolish the Electoral College; instead we should create the Instant Run-off Voting system. The process would eliminate the Electoral College problem and eventually the two-party system would reform itself. Because voters will be given a natural confidence when voting for a third party candidate (as many do anyway, despite the lack of confidence), third party candidates will slowly but surely begin to emerge with a growing recognition and chance of victory. This is a very important and positive effect of reform, considering that over the past half century, more and more voters decide to choose a third candidate, voting outside of the traditional two-party system. The two major political parties no longer have to ability that they used to have to connect the voter to his everyday political concerns and beliefs. As a result, over the past decades, the American public has been drifting from the two major parties, leading to the most important phenomenon of the past 40 years in American politics: the rise of the independent voter. We should definitely recognize this as supporting the fact that several Americans no longer identify with Republicans or Democrats. In order to keep our democracy alive and thriving, we need to follow the trend of the public, letting all voices be heard by abolishing the Electoral College.
Reform would introduce new parties (such as the Veteran’s Party), undermining the long-standing and confining two-party system and would most likely require the well-adjusted parties to amend their presidential campaign strategies, among other things. Not to mention the lack of self-interest necessary to institute a system to promote equal representation via one-man, one-vote. There is no reason to believe that either party would be willing to exchange a nearly exact campaign science when that exchange would mean a necessary modification of that science. Also, reform would mean a possibility that either party would lose control of the presidency to a third party for four or more years.
Congress has considered more bills concerning the Electoral College (over 700) than on any other subject. All of these bills are introduced by Congressmen. Plus, there continues to be very high support for Electoral College reform from both the public and prominent representatives.
By our Congressmen, and effectively by our neglect to hold them responsible for their actions. We have to take our duty to hold our elected officials accountable to us more seriously. If we disapprove of our representative’s actions and votes, it is up to every man and woman to write letters, call and, if necessary, vote out of office those that neglect our concerns. Congressmen, and all representatives, should feel and know that by ignoring public concern, they will risk their jobs. Additionally, committees in Congress often turn into graveyards for reform bills. Oddly enough, committee assignments are a matter of seniority, placing the most politically powerful Congressional leaders in committee roles. Therefore, these politicians have an even more well-developed reason to (and chance for success in) actively blocking Electoral College reform.
By bypassing the desire to push a certain type of reform, the movement can transform from a fractioned one to become more united. If reformers focus instead on their collective desire to better our arcane voting procedure, we can get a bill passed to abolish the Electoral College. We have to concentrate on putting the pressure on our representatives and holding them accountable for their actions if they fail to respond to public dissent of the Electoral College.
Direct Election with Instant Runoff Voting:

Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for Presidential elections with or without the Electoral College. With a direct vote, voters would rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. Then, when the votes are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The ballots are then counted again, this time tallying the second choice votes from those ballots indicating the eliminated candidate as the first choice. The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority, reducing time and money wasted in a normal runoff election.

Instant runoff voting on a national scale has the potential to solve many of the current dilemmas introduced by the Electoral College as well as the problems introduced by some of the other alternatives. It would end the spoiler dynamic of third party and independent candidates and consistently produce a majority, nationwide winner. It also allows voters to select their favorite candidate without ensuring a vote for their least favorite (as often happens when the spoiler dynamic is a factor and a voter prefers a third candidate the most).

Individual states can also adopt instant runoffs without a Constitutional amendment. Unlike proportional allocation, which could be unfair if only used in some states, IRV would not have negative consequences if only adopted by a few states. Each state’s electors would still be appointed through a winner-take-all method, but the IRV states would now be guaranteed to have a winner with majority approval. IRV would be best instituted without the Electoral College though, so that the winner would not just enjoy a majority within any state, but within the entire country.

But of course this is just my two cents, in accordance with the 1st Amendment.

i'll vote for a candidate who has a chance to win that is closest to my views. I don't believe in throwing away a vote.