Single Issue Voters

[Kanzler]

What do you think of single issue voters? You know, the people who happen to disregard the rest of a politician's platform for their position on a single issue (or a few), be it gun rights, gay marriage, the environment, immigration, and so on.

Is this single-issue politics a threat to democracy or is it only the result of a weak democracy? On one hand, our complex problems are only going to be solved by compromise between many areas - between the economy, the environment, education, foreign policy just to name some - but when people think about their politics in terms of litmus tests, that's really breaking down our ability to form consensus and think about the big picture. On the other hand, one could argue that single-issue politics emerges because our current parties aren't making compromise, and people latch on to single issues because they are alienated and feel it's the only way to make change.

Or should we be welcoming of single issue politics? At the end of the day in democracy, we have to accept and work with everybody's opinions, and if they happen to care mostly about one issue above the big picture, so be it, right? It also gets people emotionally involved, and political engagement is a good thing when voter apathy is so high and people are simply not caring. On the other hand, is political engagement through single issues good - is that the kind of political interest that would help democracy?

Is single issue voting good or bad for politics? Can we do something about it or is it here to stay regardless? Is it a necessary evil that gets people excited about politics? Should we try our best to get rid of it?

 

[Sagakkan]

Single-issue voters and non-voters is the result of having a two-party dictatorship. There are always going to be people who aren't informed about any wide range of issues, but when you only get two candidates whose views tend to fall within a very narrow mold, you might just pick the one who is pro-gay marriage or anti-abortion or whatever. The reason why we only get two candidates is because the Democrats and Republicans make it almost impossible for other candidates to run or be viable options, through manipulating requirements for ballot access in each state, federal subsidies to finance the two party's campaigns (that's right, your tax $$), and the role of big money in campaign finance.

 

[Silais]

Single-issue voters are a disgrace to the voting community in the United States. If you are only voting for someone based on one single point-of-view that person follows, you are ignoring all other issues to maintain your narrow-minded view of the world and what YOU believe is the most important. It perpetuates ignorance by refusing to engage in conversations and doing research on issues people find too "boring" or too "complicated". It also deepens the divide between the two parties, making it more difficult for discussions to be created on subjects because of a ridiculous and moronic rivalry.

 

[Livewire]

It's asinine. Here, I'll vote for somebody who's Pro-Life. Ok, great. Also believes evolution isn't real and that Jesus was a white man. America's political problems, in a nutshell, right there.

It's a byproduct of the two party system we have, though. You have to pick and choose between the two of them, and by picking one party for having a particular viewpoint, you're also unintentionally picking them for all those other ones. Maybe if the parties were a little less homogenous, ideologically, there would be less problems there.

 

[Kanzler]

What if there was a multiparty system? Those votes might just end up going to the Jesus Saves party and the Marijuana party. I have a feeling that the problem stems from the lack of political education, and if things were different we might end up with a set of single-issue parties ;; On the other hand, moderate Republicans can have their own distinct voice, so that'd be a good thing.

 

[Azonic]

What if there was a multiparty system? Those votes might just end up going to the Jesus Saves party and the Marijuana party. I have a feeling that the problem stems from the lack of political education, and if things were different we might end up with a set of single-issue parties ;; On the other hand, moderate Republicans can have their own distinct voice, so that'd be a good thing.

I think a multiparty system would encourage political research. If there were multiple parties and the whole Democratic and Republican division wasn't so polarizing, then the voter who votes in support of Marijuana will be inclined to research further why he would vote either the Democrats (socially liberal, fiscally liberal) or the Libertarians (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) since they both are socially liberal in supporting Marijuana.

 

[Sagakkan]

I think a multiparty system would encourage political research. If there were multiple parties and the whole Democratic and Republican division wasn't so polarizing, then the voter who votes in support of Marijuana will be inclined to research further why he would vote either the Democrats (socially liberal, fiscally liberal) or the Libertarians (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) since they both are socially liberal in supporting Marijuana.

I agree, though a good argument can be made that Democrats (aka Moderate Republicans) are less fiscally liberal than Republicans, who favor a lot more government spending, so long as it benefits people who are already wealthy.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Just gonna say one thing... in the USA, we very much have a multi-party system. It is just dominated by two particular parties because the average intelligence of the American citizen is less than that of a bag of rocks. Rather than actually figuring things out for themselves, they'll believe whatever momma has been spoonfeeding them since they were a baby.

 

[LoudSilence]

Livewire said everything I was thinking. If you were wondering what "illusion of choice" meant, look no further than American democracy, friends.

Technically we do have a multiparty system, but ask anyone to name a group other than Democrats and Republicans. Most people would probably be surprised to even hear that there are more than 2. The stigma against "oily" politicians doesn't help in keeping people objective, nor do the stupid media campaigns (these should be illegal in our political process, seriously).

Everyone only knows what the television tells them in those shoddy commercials and blown-out debates. It's a mess all around.

 

[Sagakkan]

Livewire said everything I was thinking. If you were wondering what "illusion of choice" meant, look no further than American democracy, friends.

Technically we do have a multiparty system, but ask anyone to name a group other than Democrats and Republicans. Most people would probably be surprised to even hear that there are more than 2. The stigma against "oily" politicians doesn't help in keeping people objective, nor do the stupid media campaigns (these should be illegal in our political process, seriously).

Everyone only knows what the television tells them in those shoddy commercials and blown-out debates. It's a mess all around.

I would say we effectively don't have a multi-party system, and the reason for that, to a large extent, is a very deliberate crafting of ballot access restrictions by both of the major political parties.

 

[Kanzler]

I would say we effectively don't have a multi-party system, and the reason for that, to a large extent, is a very deliberate crafting of ballot access restrictions by both of the major political parties.

I don't think that's the case. I would put the cause on a more systemic factor, the first-past-the-post system. Regardless of how free ballot access is, in FPTP the third party is absolutely useless - every election you elect the winner and the most likely alternative, all other alternatives are superfluous because only one party can stand to gain anything per election. Furthermore, the Democrats and Republicans have the moderate voters neatly divided between them. Lastly, the United States isn't exactly ideologically diverse - Canada has a multiparty system even with FPTP, but we have a New Democratic Party of a socialist persuasion - for the US socialism has been shut out as an ideology altogether.

In this light, it's only more depressing. What do we make of single issue voters when the political system has narrow range of political ideas to begin with? Truly a disgrace to objective, country-minded citizens everywhere.

That's another scary thing: single issue voters are not necessarily politically apathetic (though some can be), they can be very vocal and active about their issue of choice: see gun laws and social policy. I don't think anybody's mentioned this yet, but I think the lobbying system in the US really lends itself to single issue politics. The issue that yells the loudest and can yank the ears of candidate representatives hard enough will get their interests met. This occurs in all political systems, but in my mind the US system is particularly prone to lobbying by special interests.

It's a bad influence on political culture. I see it as influencing people to only care about themselves, and while they're at it, single issues. In a system where consensus isn't valued as much, why would somebody bother to look at the big picture?

 

[Puddle]

I think it's incredibly stupid, but of course you are going to have it.

You need to look at all the aspects the President or Political leader is talking about before making a decision on who you want to vote for.

And, I'm sure Presidents and stuff use this as an excuse to get votes. For example, if somewhere in my speech, I was able to talk about Gay Marriage, I would say that I support it. Why? Because people will vote for me simply because I do without me even needing something that will allow Gay Marriage. Politics are dumb and I hate them.