Yes I did and I don't think it's necessarily relevant, unless such examination reveals a tendency to repudiate on key issues.

Whatever you say.

Maybe we are better off with Belial NOT voting!He obviously wants a
perfect world & we just as obviously DON'T have one Irish

I do vote.

I'd just rather not be forced to.

Grumble,

There is something to what you say. My mother in law (God rest her soul) was a true, dyed in the wool, Blue Collar Democrat, who lived her life in a working class environment. From an early age, she was taught the right way to vote, and did so each election – with only one exception. In 1968, unhappy with Hubert Humphrey’s overly liberal tendencies, she voted for his opponent. Suitably chastised by subsequent events, she never again strayed from the fold. True story!

The reason I tell the story above, is that the only qualification I would suggest would be to change “polarized” to “uncritical”. Many regular voters here in the States don’t leave their comfort zone. Not so much, I believe, because they are particularly passionate about their party’s policies (polarized), but rather because it is easier to vote the same (uncritical) way again than it is to evaluate the differences between the usual two choices.

What are you looking for in a candidate then?

Jseal,

I would consider myself a well informed and thinking voter. I have generally voted for one party because they more represent my views on major issues than the the other side of the political fence.

Once in the senate there was a particular candidate endorsed by the party I follow, whom I detested. I think there were 27 candidates and I made sure I voted for the lot so I could put him last LOL. BTW he wasn't elected :)

I had a lot of satifaction being able to express my disapproval that way.

There are sure to be just as well informed and thinking voters who have opposite views to mine so it is best to get the most representative vote that you can so that you do get a majority view.

It is a terrible shame that people are too lazy, disinterested or whatever to vote. Had Hitler and Japan been allowed to overcome the world you wouldn't be allowed to vote. All those millions of people died fighting to let us be free and such is the apathy that a majority of Americans choose not to.

Let it be said that were it not compulsary in Australia, the same would happen. hitting the citizens in the hip pocket nerve is far more efective than any other method it seems.

Belial,

You are required to vote because it is the law and your duty as a citizen of Australia.

Whilst you have to vote you do not have to vote for people you do not wish for. Just leave the ballot paper blank or write you are all a useless lot of arseholes on it if you want.

I have no idea what sort of views you have or want a candidate to have. Just remember that whatever or whoever we have running the country needs to be able provide for employment, services, defence and all the things you need to make a nation function. Airy fairy notions never seem to make that happen.

Belial run for office yourself as an Independent. :)

"Airy fairy notions"?

What exactly are you trying to imply, Grumble?

Not implying anything but making the comment that candidates who are all het up on one issue tickets or too extreme like

a)
supergreen don't touch anything or cut anything down means that there are heaps less jobs and less resources available to live
b)
build things at any cost - we end up with no natural things at all after a while.

are dangerous and cannot fulfill the needs of the people

the course is in between these extremes.


and the "Land rights for Gay Whales" (yes it is a joke LOL) sort of candidate is Airy Fairy and would do no one any good in parliament.