Regarding the relation between voter and electoral candidate, best practice for solidarity and practicality?

The voter's choice candidate has been predicted beyond

all odds to lose the race to one of the major parties

candidate. Should the voter cast their vote with the

candidate they have sided with based on their judgement

of competency or should the voter vote for one of the other

candidates, the lesser of the evils so to speak, because

their candidate appears not to have a chance for winning

the election?

For example, Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C

are all running for office and a voter has evaluated

Candidate A to be the most competent, but the majority

of the population has been forecasted to vote for

Candidate B and Candidate C. Considering that

Candidate A appears to be unable to win the race

should the voter vote for one of the less competent

candidates instead?

If the voter should always vote for only the "potential"

winning candidates then what implications does that

have on the opportunity for any new parties to enter

the election race?


Wouldn't that practice eliminate any

potentially appropriate representation

of the segment of the population who

favors the alignment of the new party?

Can the interests of all the

denominations within a democracy

be accounted for in the absence of

solidarity with the candidate

who is the most appropriate

representative of some of those


3 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    A voter should always vote his/her conscience. Rather than look at what polls say, should a voter actually investigate and research the candidate? I think so. I never vote the way "I am expected to vote." I always vote the way I feel is correct for the future of the nation as a whole.

    I base my vote on several criteria. No. 1, has this candidate presented a positive platform of what they feel they can do to best represent this nation to the world, or the state they represent and all of its people. No. 2. Has this candidate engaged only in politics or personal destruction and never presented a positive platform of what "she/he" can do.

    If 1, the candidate is worth considering. If 2, I discard any thought of voting for the candidate.

    If a candidate has nothing more substantial to offer than the destruction of another person's character, then they have nothing substantial to offer this nation or the citizens of the nation.

  • 1 decade ago

    You vote after your conscience be it popular or not.

    "By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes is his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom

    and opinion." -- Lord Acton [John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton] (1834-1902), First Baron Acton of Aldenham Source: The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877

  • I think that you should vote for whomever best represents your views and morality regardless of who is projected to win.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.