Political parties of today are complicated structures, and to vote by a party means in many cases voting against how you feel about a certain issue or two.

I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I disagree with Kerry on many issues but I also disagree with Bush on certain issues as well and we're back to voting for the lesser of two Evils.... or are we?

There are many other Political Parties out there. and I have been reading up on them lately Ther green Party The Libertarian Party etc.

And the same story every time I begin to really like what I'm reading an issue will appear that I rail against that this party supports.

OK so here are the questions:

1) Do you vote by party or for the candidate?
2) Do you agree with every Facit of your Party?(if you vote by party)
3) If not is this acceptable? Or do you believe there is a party for every one?

The more I learn about the many different parties the more confused I become! Debating your position on these questions may bring clearity.

In order: (1) By Candidate. (2) What party? (3) So far I haven't found a party I can agree with 100% of the time, so I don't agree that there's a party for everyone.

I'm still waiting for a party of fiscal conservatives and social liberals who also believe that government and taxes can indeed be used for societal good outside of just defense and pork-barrel projects. Liberatarians come close on the first two, but not at all on the last one. Republicans aren't for the first two these days. Democrats are close on the first one and definitely there on the second one, but they also have a problem with pork.

There is no party whose policies I fully agree with, however...

1) It depends on the circumstances. Where I live, I vote for candidates in three parliaments: European, British and Scottish. This means I have a large number of members of parliament who represent me (as I recall; 7 in the European Parliament, 1 in the British, 8 in the Scottish Parliament). Voting by candidate is rather difficult when there is so much on offer. Furthermore, not much is given out to by individual candidates to explain what their personal feelings are, you pretty much have to do your own research there.

If I know the candidate well and what her/his policies are, the I will likely consider that indivdual. This was true of my Scottish Parliament constituency. You also get a second vote for the Scottish parliament, in which you must choose a party. The votes counted here are used to make up the 7 MSPs in my region.

In British and European elections, I will more often than not consider the party over the candidate. It is slightly different here than in the US, in that third parties have large support and rather good representation in parliament, so it is not a case of the lesser of two evils. In most circumstances, I support the Liberal Democrats, Greens, and those Labour MPs who are members of the European Socialists or Alliance of Liberals and Democrats.

2) No. I feel at times that the Liberal Democrats have rather unrealistic views on defence, even if I do share their optimism and beliefs. The Greens I find do not fully comprehend the neccesity of traveling by car, and that it is not practical in most circumstances to travel via public transport in the hectic, modern world. There is no Robin Party unfortunately, but even then I am sure I can find fault in a lot of its policies

3) There really should be a party for everyone that represents (however vaguely) what they believe. These parties should also have proportionate representation in government, rather than being branded third parties and inferior to the main two. It doesnt work for everyone (particularly large countries like the US or UK, where 2-3 dominant parties seems to work better), but from experience, I find much more satisfaction and political reward when a party I do agree with 99% of the time is elected.

1) Do you vote by party or for the candidate?

Depends. Generally I vote by ideology over party, whichever candidate is more favorable to individual liberty, but party is a major clue to that and of course the competence of the individual matters too. Sometimes I'll cast a "yellow dog" Libertarian vote just to send a message. I tend to vote against Democrats since I completely disagree with the party's ideas on the proper role of government.

Sometimes I'll vote to punish an incumbent of either party for a particulary heinous stance on an issue important to me. A vote for gun control or against electronic "fair use" would be examples; either would be cause for an Izzy political vendetta, so Senators Schumer (a notorious gun grabber) and Hollings (the Senator from the RIAA and MPAA) are on my "must defeat at any cost" list.

2) Do you agree with every Facit of your Party?(if you vote by party)

I'm a Libertarian, but I disagree with the party's isolationist stance on foreign policy. On that one issue I'm more comfortable with Republicans and hawkish Democrats.

3) If not is this acceptable? Or do you believe there is a party for every one?

I don't expect a party to agree wtih me 100%, but I don't feel at all represented by either major party except on foreign policy, which is why I"m a Libertarian, the only party I agree with on much else. Unfortunately there is no perfect party for me which is why sometimes I'm a Republican or an Independent.



Sounds good to me. I'd prefer proportional representation myself, though I don't see how that'd work with the US government structure; we might have to go to a parliamentary system to make that work.

1) Do you vote by party or for the candidate?
Almost exclusively by party. I am a member fo the Labour Party in the UK (I don't call it or think of it as "New" Labour, whatever Tony Blair & Peter Mandelson say). I find that no other party comes as close to representing my views, though sometimes I find myself agreeing more with left-wing parties more than Labour, especially in cases where the Labour line is more noticably Blairite.
That said, I will happily vote tactically on an "anyone except the Tories" basis if the necessity arises. In the past I have lived in areas where Labour or Socialist politicians of any flavour have had no real chance, and in such situations I will happily vote Lib Dem if they have the best chance of unseating, or keeping out, a Conservative. Or, these days, UKIP and the BNP as well.

2) Do you agree with every Facit of your Party?(if you vote by party)
No. Personally I would prefer it if Labour stayed a little truer to it's roots and was a bit less afraid to be seen as socialist or even vaguely left wing. Having said that, I am old enough to remember the chaos of old-style Labour infighting, and I am enough of a realist to understand that idealogues gain the luxury of sticking fast to their principles under all circumstances only at the price of never being likely to be in a position to implement them.
For one thing, I am still repulsed that despite starting to reform the House of Lords, they have not created an elected second shamber, and persist in appointing unelected placement to cabinet positions. (Valerie Amos may be a tlaented and intelligent woman who does good work for international development, but since nobody voted for her I don't think she should have the job. The selection of the executive from elected officials is one way in which I think the British electoral system is better than the USA, where everyone except the President and Vice President is an appointed placeman. It's about the only way it's better I can think of just now, but I prefer it.)
So I am willing to put up with not getting my own way a lot of the time, because it is a lot easier to persuade a "friendly" government that belongs to the same party as I do than it is to persuade idealogical opponents.

3) If not is this acceptable? Or do you believe there is a party for every one?
Yes it is acceptable, up to a point. I think I would behave very differently if Britain had a proportional representation system - I doubt I would see any need for me to remain a Labour member and supporter (except on certain issues that may arise from time to time) if such a thing happened. I think there are plenty of Labour party members and activists who would think the same way, which may be a reason why Labour bottled out and haven't continued down the PR route that they set out on in 1997.
I am not yet convinced that PR would lead to better (quality) government, though it would certainly lead to better (more accurately reflective of the electorate) representation.