Survey: Your Voting Patterns

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PLAL

Guest
I am doing a survey for school. Please check all that apply which describes how you vote in the General Presidential Election.

Please as the rules state: Do NOT discuss candidates or political parties.

I ONLY want to discuss issues ONLY!

Thank You,

PLAL
 
I only checked that abortion is the number 1 issue and I’m a practicing Catholic. I’m not sure whether voting for the lesser of two evils or doing a write-in is best. I just want to end abortion, plain and simple. I don’t know the best way to do it politically, though.
 
I Would Vote For A Candidate Who Supported Infanticide if… his name was Peter Singer.
 
It took a long time, and was HARD work, but I sincerely believe I have fully detached myself from the Democratic and Republican Parties. The Parties, and their current internal constitutions/planks are unacceptable to me as a practicing, fully believing, orthodox Catholic Christian. At least in the way I understand Christianity. This creates a paradox which I will not be able to overcome, I’m afraid in the 2008 General Election. I WILL go vote. It’s a privilege that not all countries even have! It is most likely that I will not cast a vote for President, and instead move on down the ballot to my local elections, ballot measures, etc. I can live with that. It would satisfy both my duties of citizenship, and my resolve to my faith and personal integrity.

There are two people who I had hopes for early on. I suppose I may write one of them in. I haven’t decided. The effect of a write-in is negligable, but so is the effect of a blank box. I am NOT a lesser of 2 evils person. I am resigned to giving my patriotic loyalty, (which is WAY below my Christian loyalty), to whoever we get, and praying that the choices improve as our country matures. At the date and time of this writing, there are three persons who may become the President in January of 2009. I will be happy with some aspects of any of them, and disappointed with some aspects of any of them. I choose to believe that all of them love their families, and are good Americans. I don’t respond to the attempts of rival political parties to instill fear in us about our prospective leaders, so that we feel unsafe voting for anyone but their candidate. It just doesn’t wash. All Presidents, so far, have loved their country. They have different forms of expressing it, and different ideas. That’s why they have elections. I pray that someday, the parties and candidates will focus solely on what each candidate’s views, ideas, and plans are in relation to the issues of the day. Not how ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’ a person is. I love some of the values adopted by both parties. In fact, either party, with one or two key adjustments could become my party of choice.

I used to feel that we should all just be independent and scrap the parties altogether, but the more I learn about civics, the more I’m persuaded that parties serve a purpose for working with the state attorney generals, promoting candidates, etc… Now I’m in the camp of hoping for a third major party, with the same level of influence as the Democrats and Republicans, which would be a hybrid of liberalism and conservatism based on common sense and natural law. A party that would back a candidate, for instance, who held both ‘Just War doctrine’, AND a Pro-Life stance. That sort of thing.

Anyway…

Peace to all.

Here’s to more choices in the future.

and fewer Senators running too. 😉
 
PLAL said:
I am doing a survey for school. Please check all that apply which describes how you vote in the General Presidential Election.

Please as the rules state: Do NOT discuss candidates or political parties.

I ONLY want to discuss issues ONLY!

Thank You,

PLAL
Click to expand...
I question your bias in your methodology. Your later options appear inflammatory. It also appears that this revolves around a single issue voting pattern, which is often unrepresentative of the vast majority of people.

Also be aware that any online poll is not scientifically valid as anyone can say anything online and you cannot extrapolate results on CAF to the overall Catholic population in the US and worldwide.
 
My voting patterns? It’s supposed to be a secret ballot. Why should I ruin my right to that by sharing my patterns in any forum?
 
PLAL said:
I am doing a survey for school. Please check all that apply which describes how you vote in the General Presidential Election.

Please as the rules state: Do NOT discuss candidates or political parties.

I ONLY want to discuss issues ONLY!

Thank You,

PLAL
Click to expand...
This is an interesting topic, though a little hard to answer without going into the specific examples of parties and candidates.

Personally, though abortion is a big issue for me, and though I am a little bt of an anti-abortion activist, there are other really big issues that also affect my vote: the war, healtcare, labor, taxes, etc.

Though abortion is a big topic, for me, it’s just one of many issues we face going into the elections. I instead would vote by balancing out all of the issues.

If, say, there were two candidates going after each other, one pro-life and one pro-choice, and the pro-life candidate was also a proponent of stupid policies, I’d vote for the pro-choice guy. It’s not because he’s pro-choice, but it’s because overall he’s just better than the other guy.

I wouldn’t do a write-in vote or vote for an independent candidate. Those almost never end in electing the person you vote for. Instead, I vote for the major candidate whose stance I like the most. If I vote for the independent or write-in, it’s just taking a vote away from the candidate I like. It’s practically giving my vote to the guy I didn’t like.

Furthermore, the media just doesn’t do a good job of really reporting who’s Pro-Life and who’s not. In fact, it sucks at it. President Bush (whom I hope I can discuss because he is not a candidate) has the reputation in the media for being pro-life, yet Judie Brown, the pro-life expert at EWTN, says that Bush really isn’t. I don’t know what she’s basing that on, but one thing is for sure – Ms Brown knows the topic better than any of these hack reporters do. You’d be surprised with how bad a lot of reporters are at their jobs. It’s especially the case with issues relating to the Church. Because of their biases and, frankly, their own sheer stupidity, they don’t really report the news, but just report what they think is going on. It would work if they were smarter and more honest, but they’re not, so they suck. They really do. I can go through media reports and point things out over and over again regarding where their reports about the Church are biased or dead wrong.

Anyway, I hope you do well with your report. I think it’s fine asking us about our opinions on voting issues, even though it is, as someone said, a secret ballot. It isn’t as if you’re forcing us to tell you what we think. Exit polls (polls of voters asking them whom they chose right after they voted) do the same thing. Secret ballot, yes, but we’re free to decline or lie about our choice on it.
 
ribozyme said:
I Would Vote For A Candidate Who Supported Infanticide if… his name was Peter Singer.
Click to expand...
This guy?

"Singer’s positions have been challenged by many different groups concerned with what they see as an attack upon human dignity, from advocates for disabled people to right-to-life supporters and people who challenge what they believe are his efforts to supplant the central role of religion from ethical debate.[citation needed]

In Germany, his positions have been compared to Nazism and his lectures have been repeatedly disrupted. Some claim that Singer’s utilitarian ideas lead to eugenics. American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer’s appointment to an honorable position.[33] Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that “A professor of morals … who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns … is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level.”[34] Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer’s appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization’s national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer’s support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.[35]"

Wow. Bummer.

Peace,

Steven
 
goofyjim said:
My voting patterns? It’s supposed to be a secret ballot. Why should I ruin my right to that by sharing my patterns in any forum?
Click to expand...
I would have been more charitible to just refrain from voting—and from commenting.
 
where is the…“you couldn’t pay me enough to vote” option?
 
Whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-abortion is important to me only because it answers the question about his/her world-view. But it does not give me any hope whatsoever that the killing of babies will be reduced through the political process. We’ve had plenty of supposedly pro-life Presidents… what good did it do? 🤷
 
invocation said:
where is the…“you couldn’t pay me enough to vote” option?
Click to expand...
If that would have been your choice, I recommend you reconsider your position. Voting is one of our Catholic duties. Pray about it and make the best choice.
 
I believe in the “seamless garment” approach to life issues as expressed by Cardinal Bernadine. All human life has dignity and is sacred and worthy of our respect. I support candidates who take pro life positions on abortion and the death penalty, which means I am often left with no one to vote for. In cases like this I try to look at the candidates general outlook and often end up voting for someone I’m not 100% satisfied with, but whom I think will advance pro life positions in a positive direction. The abortion issue is a really big one for me and I find it difficult to vote for a candidate who supports abortion on demand, but it is not the only issue I consider.
 
I did not vote for the last question. I am a faithful Catholic and follow what Holy Mother Church teaches. Many people call themselves “faithful” catholics yet do not follow the teachings. So the question was IMHO worded so I could not answer.

There are Faithful Catholics and there are faithful catholics IMHO.
One follows the traditions and teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.
The other just follows a form of unity with other people.
 
ribozyme said:
I Would Vote For A Candidate Who Supported Infanticide if… his name was Peter Singer.
Click to expand...
catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0049.html

Just some of what your choice for a leader believes.
According to Singer, some humans are non-persons, while some non-human animals are persons. The key is not nature or species membership, but consciousness. A pre-conscious human cannot suffer as much as a conscious horse. In dealing with animals, we care only about their quality of life. We put a horse that has broken its leg out of its misery as quickly as possible. This merciful act spares the animal an untold amount of needless suffering. If we look upon human animals in the same fashion, our opposition to killing those who are suffering will begin to dissolve. The “quality-of-life” ethic has a tangible correlative when it relates to suffering; the “sanctity-of-life” seemingly relates to a mere vapor.
Here is where Singer picks up his detractors. According to this avant garde thinker, unborn babies or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig. Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death: Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.
And writing specifically about Down syndrome babies, he advocates trading a disabled or defective child (one who is apparently doomed to too much suffering) for one who has better prospects for happiness: We may not want a child to start on life’s uncertain voyage if the prospects arc clouded. When this can be known at a very early stage in the voyage, we may still have a chance to make a fresh start. This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born, cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible. Instead of going forward and putting all our effort into making the best of the situation, we can still say no, and start again from the beginning.
Click to expand...
 
The only way I could vote for a candidate that supported infanticide is if the only other real option advocated even worse things.

For instance, McCain supports the right to choose for women who have been raped, and I feel that that’s murder. So he supports infanticide. He doesn’t support it in anywhere near as many cases as Clinton or Obama, however. Therefore I voted for him, even though he supports the legalization of murder in some cases.
 
Catholic Answers Forum has a policy that bans all discussions of political candidates. This ban includes posts that name a candidate, allude to a particular candidate, use euphemisms for a candidate, or refer to surrogates for a particular candidate. This includes signatures.

For more information see Banned Topics and the discussion at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…ight=candidate

If you have any questions about this action, please send me a private message.

God bless,
MF
 
Tsuwano said:
I believe in the “seamless garment” approach to life issues as expressed by Cardinal Bernadine. All human life has dignity and is sacred and worthy of our respect. I support candidates who take pro life positions on abortion and the death penalty, which means I am often left with no one to vote for. In cases like this I try to look at the candidates general outlook and often end up voting for someone I’m not 100% satisfied with, but whom I think will advance pro life positions in a positive direction. The abortion issue is a really big one for me and I find it difficult to vote for a candidate who supports abortion on demand, but it is not the only issue I consider.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Bernadin was a disaster as a Catholic leader. Many of the Bishops he reccomended for appointment were among the forefront of the abuse crisis, either as abusers or enablers.

His “seemless garment” theory was also contrary to the teaching of the Magesterium. Life issues (Abortion, Euthanasia, stem cell research, gay marriage) are non-negotiable. No Catholic in good conscience can support these practices.

Other issues that are claimed under the"seemless garment" (death penalty, just war, anti-poverty programs, etc.) are all subject to prudential judgement. Catholic are free to decide these issues for themselves.

If a candidate is actively pro-abortion, we can not vote for them in good conscience, if a more pro-life candidate is available.

God Bless
 
Whoops, I missed the “abortion is a key issue” checkbox. Sorry for messing up the stats.

As for whether all Catholics voted the way I do if abortion would be overturned, no, I’m afraid not. I usually vote for a major party candidate, and the Republicans don’t really seem to care much more than the democrats do. If abortion went away, so might a good deal of their religious/Catholic base, I suspect.

As for a write-in, well, I’ve become something of a realist. But I might actually resort to a write-in this year, to avoid voting for abortion on the left and a war with Iran on the right.

What’s a voter to do? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top