Who would vote against their principles?

[monoman]

Are there any posters out there who would vote against their principles?

What got me thinking was the debate about the increase in fee of the BBC license in the UK.
I don’t believe that the license fee in the UK is fair. It forces people to buy the license (if they have a TV) whether they watch BBC channels or not.
However, given a vote on the matter, I would vote to keep it in order to ensure the status quo - The excellent program content (in my opinion), world service, radio stations and the archives of radio shows freely available on the internet.
Check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ for an example.

Just so you know what I’m talking about, another example might be agreeing with Sunday trading in principle but voting to keep it restricted.
It can also work the other way round where the status quo is changed. Eg. You believe in the right of every person to own a gun but you would vote for restriction.

So come on fess up

 

[Fungrim]

If a viable alternative exists, no. Ie. if there is an alternative which I agree to completely I will not vote against my principles. But if it doesn't, and that's usually the case for me, I will vote pragmatically, which means I may have to cross some of my principles. The lesser evil and all that. However, it is unlikely I would vote at all should all alternatives go against my principles too much.

 

[monoman]

If a viable alternative exists, no. Ie. if there is an alternative which I agree to completely I will not vote against my principles. But if it doesn't, and that's usually the case for me, I will vote pragmatically, which means I may have to cross some of my principles. The lesser evil and all that. However, it is unlikely I would vote at all should all alternatives go against my principles too much.

In the case of the license fee i would actually put my selfish needs infront of my principles and actually vote on the matter. I'm sure there's many, probabley more important, cases where, like you, i would either vote with my principles or abstein.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I always vote against some of my principles for the simple but depressing reason that no candidates ever run for office here that I agree with 100% of their policies. Always have to pick and choose and assess which principles matter the most.

But as for individual ballot items like that, no. Why would you vote against your own principles? That's why you have principles to start with, to let you know which is the correct choice.

Depressing again, is the certain knowledge that whenever I vote for my principles on individual issues on the ballot, they'll probably be defeated because my principles are so much different than the majority of voters around me.

Prop 239, "Monkeys Will Be Released In The Shopping Mall At Xmas To Clear The Crowds Through Biting" was nothing but a glorious dream.

 

[BPSCG]

Prop 239, "Monkeys Will Be Released In The Shopping Mall At Xmas To Clear The Crowds Through Biting" was nothing but a glorious dream.

You need to work harder if you want to achieve your dream.

Or move to India.

Or Thailand.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sometimes principles compete.

You don't think that the license fee is the best way to raise the revenue, but you know the revenue has to be raised. There is no proposal on the table that meets all of your principles, so you have to decide whether this particular proposal would be more or less acceptable to your principles.

If you, or your elected representatives, only ever voted for propositions that were 100% compatible with all of your beliefs, you would never support anything, because in any real legislation, there is inevitably a tradeoff.

When forced to vote on a ballot proposition, I am more likely to vote based on what I think the practical effect of the law will be, rather than on some abstract notion of principles.

 

[CapelDodger]

You need to work harder if you want to achieve your dream.

Or move to India.

Or Thailand.

Gibralter has baboons. Baboons are good too. They can bring some serious teeth to the table. TragicMonkey : would you accept the baboon amendment to the proposition if you lost the monkey principle but saved the biting principle?

 

[The Fool]

Are there any posters out there who would vote against their principles?

In Australia the law may require it.
We have a stupidity called compulsory voting.... if the choice of candidates in your electorate are all Nazis...you must vote for a Nazi...

 

[shemp]

I Will Not Vote Against My Principles!!! I Will Vote For Zod!!!

 

[Roboramma]

In Australia the law may require it.
We have a stupidity called compulsory voting.... if the choice of candidates in your electorate are all Nazis...you must vote for a Nazi...

Couldn't you do a write in, or deface the ballot?

 

[Gayle]

I have voted for candidates who did not support my principles because they were a MUCH better option than the other candidate, who violated my principles on many levels.

I have voted against park bonds, although I personally supported parks and green space, because the contituents I represented did not have the money to pay the bond fees or would be harmed by traffic and land acquistion.

I have voted against budget increases and pay increases I supported for the same reason.

I have worked tirelessly in favor of a multimillion dollar project that would mildly damage the liveability of a neighborhood because it would block a much worse multimillion dollar project that would utterly destroy the livability of the 'hood. I opposed both projects on principle, but one was worse than the other in practice.

I have voted against projects I supported in principle in the present because I did not trust they would be carried out in practice in the future in accordance with my principles.

I refused to oppose condemnation of private property when the property in question was a squatter's haven for teenage prostitution and methamaphetamine sales. That caused me more cognitive dissonance than any of the other decisions put together because it meant I could no longer "stand on principle" in future condemnation battles.

Ed knows, I wish these decisions were as easy as the TV tax in the British Isles.

 

[The Fool]

Couldn't you do a write in, or deface the ballot?

From Australian electoral law...(no such thing as a write in here...its just ballot defacing)

"No one shall:impersonate anyone in order to secure a ballot paper to which the impersonator is notentitled;impersonate anyone in order to vote;fraudulently destroy or deface any ballot paper;fraudulently put any ballot paper or other paper in the ballot box;fraudulently take any ballot paper out of any polling booth or counting centre;forge any ballot paper;supply ballot papers without authority;unlawfully destroy, take, open or otherwise interfere with ballot boxes or ballotpapers;wilfully vote more than once at the same election;make a deliberately false or misleading statement about any claim, application, return,declaration or answer to a question concerning the election.PENALTY: Imprisonment for 6 months. [CEA, s.339(1)]9"

So its 6 months in the big house if you do...granted that I don't know of anyone actually imprisoned for doing it but silly laws are still silly even if the courts are too embarassed to apply them...

So in my country if you find a list of people on your ballot paper that make you want to puke you must support one of them with a vote. The very same vote that your choice will use to demonstrate that people agree with thier views....