Vote for party regardless of candidate?

[Lupus]

How does it really work in USA? Do you vote for your party even if
the candidate is not to your liking? His/her record, policies, ideals,
colour, friends, whatever may be no good, but who cares, long live the party?
Or does the intelect, logic and maybe common sense cross party lines?:hmmm:

[Old_Scratch]

No, that's such bad way to look at it. I hate the two big parties, I don't feel that we have enough control over who gets elected. If someone is too middle of the road, he or she will not get elected. Oh yeah, don't forget that they have to have some connection with some major religion for anyone to vote for them. They also have to pretend that they are for both the upper class and the lower class and every other voter catagory and special intrest group. A candidate can't just speak his mind. Personally I think they're all a bunch of crooks anyway.

[Lupus]

A classic case of BS baffles the mind?

PS I am playing devil's advocate in an attempt to understand.

[Viking Prince]

About a third of the electorate is registered with each party and the real battle is over those who are not affiliated with either party. Those who advocate voting for the person and not the party are usually not members of either party in the first place.

To a great degree party does trump the candidate if you are affiliated with a party. The fight for the candidate is within the party nominating process. Once the candidate is decided upon most party members will fall into support. Why? The candidate is still closer to the ideals than the other party's candidate. There are many reasons: to attempt a legislative majority, to control the executive, and to have a strong say in the composition of the judiciary. Also -- lower level offices are the training ground for higher office. Most candidates win their first race due to party affiliation and not attributes as a potential legislator which are really unknowns.

[touchmaster]

If you were a high ranking member in a political party, you vote for the party, you live by the party. They don't care who's the candidate. Pretty nasty stuff, just one of the reasons why I hate politics.

[Admiral Piett]

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case of people's attitudes in Texas. Most Bush supporters hate McCain, but now they are throwing roses at his feet. It's ing sickening. Half of them don't even know his policies.

[Iscariott]

I think it's a lot more common in local/state-wide positions than bigger things like congressmen/presidents. At least where I live, unless you're looking for local politics(or watch network tv and local news) it's entirely possible to have a list of names you're at best vaguely familiar with to choose from. And while a bad metric, party affiliation is slightly more insightful than 'who has the coolest sounding last name'.

[Lupus]

Sounds like the independents have the last say. If you want to win, convince them. What is the percentage split (ballpark figure) between the three groups (D,R and Ind)? Roughly thirds?

[Viking Prince]

Sounds like the independents have the last say. If you want to win, convince them. What is the percentage split (ballpark figure) between the three groups (D,R and Ind)? Roughly thirds?

Correct on the percentages on a national basis, but local politics is usually more slanted towards on party than the other. I would prefer to say unaffiliated though. There is an Independant Party, so unaffiliated is a bit more descriptive -- just to avoid confusion.

As for the unaffiliated having the last say --- yes, but first the candidates need to be nominated by their party. This is where the competition is at -- especially in "safe" districts. So independants really have less say on who represents them than the party members.

[Lupus]

I mistakenly thought the independents were the unaffiliated. Thanks for clearing that up. Wonder where I missed that piece of info?
I hoped to receive some answers from forum members and guests, and I
did! Very clear and informative. Thank you very much. Esp to Viking Prince.
I never expected Gen. Colin Powell to answer though. That took me a little by surprise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/powell
I am just glad to see pondering of facts triumph over blind loyalty.

[Mikelus Trento]

Lupus,

You might not know this, but regardless of which party, if any, you are "registered" for, when you go inside the voting booth, you can pick whomever you like.

FYI.

[Osceola]

I don't personally but a huge ing majority of people do, haha.

It sucks.

[Lord Consul]

Yup, just because you're, let's say, a registered dem won't prevent you from voting McCain if you want to.

[Mikelus Trento]

Yup, just because you're, let's say, a registered dem won't prevent you from voting McCain if you want to.

ahahaha like THAT'S going to happen.

[imb39]

To register that you are a Republican or Democrat at all is crazy - this should have nothing to do with the register of voters and remain purely as a party thing. How on earth did America come to use this terrible system? Does the civil service do anything?

[Big War Bird]

To register that you are a Republican or Democrat at all is crazy - this should have nothing to do with the register of voters and remain purely as a party thing. How on earth did America come to use this terrible system? Does the civil service do anything?

I blame it on too many people being able to vote.

I will definitely be voting republican in the Senate and for the House of Representatives.

Senator Saxby Chambliss is a Fair Tax supporter and Representative John Linder is the main sponsor of it in the House. plus the democrat challenger to Chambliss is a lying sack of about the Fair Tax. I guess you could say I'm a one issue voter . . .

I plan on voting tomorrow, just haven't decided if I can push the button for McCain

[imb39]

I blame it on too many people being able to vote.

I am glad you have an affinity for Mugabe. Very touching.

[Strattios]

We have primaries in an attempt to avoid this. Each party has a bunch of options. It is then refined to a favorite from each party. That right there eliminates the whole party idea. Then most people vote for a party because it is a general way that the person is expected to act. Of course there are variation in each candidate, but that's what the primaries are for. You then vote for the trend that the person displays, this is often similar to his/her party. That is why it is unlikely for me to vote Democrat any time soon. I disagree with to many of their ideas and they haven't put up a candidate that shows any promise of deviating from their ideological trends (barring a few local elections of course).

[Lupus]

Maybe I am old fashioned. I would rather vote for an individual on merit than a party. I do, however understand the idea of steering in the general direction.
Apart from swaying left and right on some issues, I am basically conservative. But following US elections, for the first time consistently, I can not see myself, academically at least as I am non-US, going right.
Hence my original Q.
Just wondering whether the complicating of politics has removed the intellect from the below-to-average individual (politically speaking)?

[wilting]

I feel it necessary to point out that the agency of the individual (in political science terms - and even this is only recently believed) is only really of consequence at key moments of history.

In other words, individual candidates actually don't matter that much, but party affiliation is of significance in terms of the voters that party is beholden to and which it therefore must placate. (For example, left of centre parties are judged more harshly on unemployment, right of centre on inflation.)

An individual is a product of factors. There is nothing special about them. The same set of factors in a different individual give the same result.

Have a nice day.

I blame it on too many people being able to vote.

Translation: I blame it on poor people being able to vote. (Any system based upon 'education' or 'taxation' as you previously alluded to is obviously going to favour the wealthy; a section of the electorate that you oh-so-coincidentally might be more likely to agree with)