1 Issue Voters

A

Alakar

New member
I have seen people post how they will not vote for one person because of a single issue, or they will vote for some one because of a single issue. Not just on this board, but many other boards that I post on, people seem to be 1 issue voters.

So my question is this: Would you vote for candidate that you disagreed with on everything except that one hot issue (gun control, abortion, the Iraq War, etc), or would you go with a candidate that more closely matched your overall views, even though you felt they were wrong on that hot issue?

I'm curious because I can't vote single issue. I have to vote with the person that most closely match's most of my beliefs, even if that means I may disagree with them on a issue that is very important to me.
 
It depends how far off they are. If I otherwise agreed with a candidate that wanted an outright ban on the private possession of all firearms, then no.
 
It is all a matter of degree. There are also a ton of other factors that would come into play depending on the issue.

One of the major considerations would be the likely hood that they could push their agenda forward.

For example a state legislator was anti-gun his/her chances of pushing that agenda forward would be small here in VA.

This would way into my decision heavily.
 
Interestingly enough I find that those candidates that are strong pro 2A supporters seem to mirror my feelings on lots of other issues. I have no problems being a single issue voter. I use 2A to "thin the herd". :D
 
One issue voters don't see the big picture.

Gun owners are notoriously bad at supporting the 2nd, and not paying attention to the others. How long do they really think they will get to keep their guns if all the other rights go away?
 
The other side of the coin is, "How long will our other rights last if our guns are taken away?" I am also a NRA Life Member, since this spring, and I do tend to be one issue this year and, probably, next year also. Hillary has more lust for power than just about anybody whom I have seen running for office at any time during my 58 year. Also, we need to consider what the politicians intend to do to us and our children that makes them so anxious to disarm us. It can't be good. See my signature line. That says it all.
 
Last edited:
I didn't think I was a one issue voter until someone claimed he believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old and that evolution was a myth, or something along those lines. To me if a candidate holds a position on any subject that calls into question his or her ability to think then that person will not get my vote.

But, as a libertarian democrat I find that I have to choose whichever candidate is overall the best match, since there are going to be plenty of issues over which I disagree with most candidates.
 
Some issues are more important than others

I'd have to agree that it depends on the whole picture of how well a candidate's views reflect my own.

I'd have to assign different weights to different issues, though; there are some where I have "positions", but they're not really all that important to me.

For instance, I don't see a problem with gay marriage; who cares if Steve and Eric want to get married? I don't. On the other hand, I don't much care if they can't, either, so I don't pay much attention to a candidate's stand on that one. I don't think it's a huge crisis either way.

Abortion is another, though that ranks a little higher. I think the two extremes are both wrong, and I'd have to think hard about a candidate that was a hardcore absolutist either way.

Evolution is a ridiculous issue. The opening verses of Genesis are a Hebrew poem about the spiritual nature and significance of the Creation, not a geology textbook. Here's a hint: In Hebrew, "Adam" means "Mankind". Jewish tradition has held, since about the 2nd century, that the Creation began about 15.3 billion years ago--about the same figure that scientists finally decided on in THIS century. And forgive me, but it IS our book...

And so on. Far and away the most important issue to me is gun control. If a candidate is rabidly anti-gun, forget it; but, if a candidate is totally great on guns but a huge jerk in other areas--no names, please--that one isn't going to get my vote, either. I'll accept a guy who's a little soft on guns if he's solid everywhere else--but if he's TOO soft, I'm looking elsewhere. Solid on guns and soft everywhere else, within reason, and I'm good to go.
 
You know ... I am a one issue voter right up until there are only 2 candidates left. And then I will vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Which if the election were held today would be Guilliani instead of Hillary. In congressional elections I vote stratight republican, though I would certainly vote for a pro-gun democrat I liked (which doesn't seem to happen in my colorado district but does in other states).

Why guns as my single issue?

Social issues, like universal healthcare, etc. come and go. And Congress is always going to react to what the majority want no matter who is in power. We can control excesses on those through pressure on congress and fear of the electorate.

But on the issue of gun control ... once we lose the right to own guns, it's gone and will never be back. UN treaties, world view, and children brainwashed in liberal schools will see to that. And the very future of our nation will be at stake. And a right that American's have cherished and enjoyed for generations, since the very founding, will have been taken away NOT for any good reason or to make us safer, but just because the anti-gun liberal types don't want us to have guns. And I think we're at the turning point here ... unless we win now, we've lost forever.

No argument against private gun ownership holds up under scrutiny or when looked at how it affects America in the long run. Yet people continue to fight to take them away with lies and deception -- just because they have vision of a utopian world with no guns (rather like the communist view of a world with no class struggle). Except we'll be stuck with their view if they win, and then everyone loses.

And why I tend to vote for a party instead of an individual ...

in my youth I used to believe in "voting for the person, not the party." While I don't totally disbelieve in that, I've noticed that party's seem to accomplish more than individuals. i.e. even a pro-gun democrat may be politically pressured into voting for a gun control bill that his party leader thinks is important.

I'm not saying the US will come to an end if we lose a RKBA, of course ... but I honestly believe it will be a big negative in the long run. and definitely a loss of a right.

That's one reason I hope SCOTUS and Parker resolve this in our favor. Then maybe we can lay aside all the anti-gun crap and I can quit worrying quite so much about being a 1 issue voter.

The political world I'd like to see (not going to happen in my lifetime) is one where responsible gun ownership is an accepted facet of American life and no one really challenges it.
 
I'm a one issue voter. If the candidate is anti-gun, I don't look any further at them. They are history. Only pro-gun candidates get past the entrance exam and warrant further review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top