>

One of the issues many consider to be on the ballot right now is democracy itself
If there is a candidate openly campaigning that they will use their position to throw out any election result they don't agree with, and with enough people in enough positions of power, they may actually be able to do so, that issue becomes the most important one because it affects all others
It doesn't mean that other policies don't matter or aren't considered, but that the ability to continue to be able to vote on them is more important than short-term support
Policy losses can be reversed, democracy loss? Not so much, so I can see that being a reasonable single issue
/u/onomatopoeiahadafarm (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


For example, choosing a pediatrician for your child? Sure, making sure the doctor is well-qualified and well-trained to give excellent medical care is super important for most people.

You are comparing competing benefits/costs, with a deal breaker. For example, "Yeah this pediatrician is affordable, in network, really caring with kids, and close by, but he's also been convicted of sexual abuse of a minor" Like, it doesn't matter how great all of the other things are about him, you just can't use that pediatrician. 
People feel similarly about politicians.
For Pro Life people: "Yeah this politician is great in ways X Y and Z, but he supports people murdering babies, so no can do."
I really don't know why someone who believed abortion was killing a human child, would be irrational for choosing not to support anyone who advocated it? >

Choosing not to support a Democrat because they support legalized abortion, is different than choosing to unconditionally support a Republican because they support abortion restrictions.
In other words, sure, voting for Donald Trump meant that he would add justices who wanted to overturn RVW. But supporting him despite the fact that he was repeatedly accused of sexual assault? That kind of single-issue voting is my hang-up. >

Well, they simply don't care about someone being accused about sexual assault nearly as much as the pro-life issue. Imagine a scenario where Republicans were somehow pro-life but also had a policy where they wanted to execute all Christians. Now, obviously, pretty much all the pro-life voters are going to vote Democrat despite their pro-choice platform. So... does that still make them single-issue voters by your standards? There are other policies that would make them change their vote. There just aren't any policies that candidates would realistically espouse that are more important to them than the pro-life issue.
Similarly, there are people who wouldn't vote for Republicans who are anti-LGBT (i.e. most Republicans) because... they are members of the LGBT community. It's difficult to say a trans person is doing anything wrong by refusing to vote for someone who literally wants to criminalize their existence given the actual platforms of both parties. If the Democrats had on their platform that they also wanted to shoot all left-handed men over the age of 50, then maybe those trans people would vote Republican. But there are issues so pressing it's hard to see why any others would possibly matter in light of those for some individuals. >

Many people who are pro-life belive that abortion is murder and that Democrats are, therefore, in favor of murdering hundreds of thousands of babies every year.
Whether or not you agree with that belief, put yourself in their shoes: if you believed that one party was for the wholesale slaughter of infants and the other was against it, would anything else matter? If you actually believe that one side is killing babies, the fiscal policies or character flaws of those on the other side are irrelevant.
To use your car example: if one car got 30 gallons to the mile (meaning it took 30 gallons of gas to drive one mile) or it had brakes that weren't just broken but irreparable, wouldn't either one of those single issues make you not buy it? 
When choosing a pediatrician, isn't location a single issue determinant for you? I mean, no matter how amazing the pediatrician is, you're not driving 2500 miles when your kid needs medical attention.
Or imagine choosing a desert when you're allergic to peanuts. Well, you might not like one option, but if the other kills you, you're going to go for the former. >

Another example would be a LGBTQ person and LGBTQ rights. Do you really expect them to vote for anyone that’s against rights for them. That politician could want to do everything else they want but being against LGBTQ rights means a vast majority of that demographic isn’t going to vote for that person. >

great example to show that it works for both sides. I hate it when people always use examples against a single side because that side is currently unpopular in modern western ideology; it breeds a false impression that "the other side is always unreasonable" and that "we don't have these problems". >

There is a major advantage to single-issue voting I haven’t seen mentioned yet. You can actually find people’s objective stances on them at nearly every election level. You can spent 30 seconds per candidate finding pro-life, pro-choice, anti-LGBT, etc. or you can spend hours per candidate weeding through generic “education good, vets good, crime bad” rhetoric to maybe figure out someone’s other policy stances.
People are busy, and not everyone follows politics. If you only have 2 hours of time to research and vote, it’s more prudent to vote for candidates that you agree with on your #1 issue than skip voting in races. >

Thanks for your comment. As I mentioned in my OP, I do agree that single-issue voting is superior to not voting at all. However, by your same logic, couldn't I also make the case that single-issue voting is an excuse not to concern yourself with other things that also matter? Also, I think it's important to consider that some of the easy-to-find sources that score candidates on these hot-button issues might be incentivized to exaggerate their policy views. E.g., maybe a candidate is generally pro-choice but voted against a so-called "late-term abortion" bill. That ambiguity could serve pro-choice and pro-life groups well, with enough advertising money. >

How broad must a voter's one view become before it no longer counts as "single-issue voting?" If someone's chief and only concern when choosing a candidate to vote for is "the economy" or "liberty" (however vague that may be), are they a single-issue voter? >

Thanks for your question. If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that an "issue" that is broadly-enough defined to where it would be a product of multiple individual policies seems better than an "issue" that is reducible to a single policy, law, vote, etc.
For example, if a voter says "the economy" is their only concern, then that is probably a composite of concerns, actually - inflation, unemployment, taxation, income inequality, etc.
Ultimately, I think it is a continuum, not a binary. I don't have a magic threshold beyond which I would say that a voter's concern is suddenly single-issue vs. multi-issue. >

If that's the case then there are no true single issues because they all relate to other issues. >

I don't think I agree. I'm pretty sure that some Republican voters in 2016 literally only voted for Donald Trump because he published the list of names of federal judges he would nominate to SCOTUS, and all of them were expected to be in favor of overturning RVW. >

Then they voted for exactly what they wanted, no? >

As an individual strategy, single issue voting is a terrible idea. But imagine a voting block of a few hundred impassioned voters who can swing a mayoral election one way or another. By focusing on a single issue, the group of voters can sway the outcome of the election, creating real change in an area that they care about. >

I'm interested in this thought experiment, and in the distinction between single-issue voting at individual vs. communal levels. My concern, though, is that it still maps onto the abortion example pretty clearly. For example, I imagine there were whole churches of people that insisted everyone vote for Trump unconditionally because of his policy promises re: abortion, despite his other flaws. >

And if their goal was to overturn abortion rights, those churches were pretty damn successful. Three of the five justices who voted to nullify Roe were appointed by Donald Trump. It's true that Trump had a disastrous impact on American politics as a whole, but an extreme anti-abortion advocate would see any candidate willing to overturn abortion as worthy of their support.
The reason you and I disagree with evangelical churches is not that their strategy was ineffective. It's that we disagree with their opinions on abortion and how much they value the issue over all others. >

Single-issue voting is often a bad idea but it can be rational in the right circumstances, and those circumstances can come up somewhat often.
For these examples, imagine something like a 'position preference distance', such that you would prefer a policy that is 10 units away from your most preferred policy twice as much as you would prefer one that is 20 units away.
Imagine the case where there are 5 issues on the ballot. Candidate 1 entirely agrees with your position on issues 1-4, but is 100 units away from your preference on issue 5.  Candidate 2 is 10 units away from you on issues 1-4, but entirely agrees with you on issue 5.  
Electing Candidate 1 based on issues 1-4 lands you 100 preference units away from what you actually want, while single-issue voting for Candidate 2 only lands you 40 units away.  It's rational to single-issue vote in a case like this.
This is not an uncommon situation in US politics specifically because candidates try very hard to find wedge issues that divide people and then focus policy decision on those wedges.  So while both sides are basically offering neoliberal economics with +-10% welfare, and both sides are basically committed to halting illegal immigration with +-10% funding to ICE, and etc., one side thinks that abortion is literally murder and the other side thinks that it is a crucial necessity for maintaining the right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.  Or one side thinks guns are the only thing keeping our murder rates way higher than the rest of the civilized world, and the other side thinks they're the only thing keeping us from sinking into endless tyranny. Or etc.  
When the two sides are close together on most issues but far apart on some wedge issues, and you are much closer to one side than the other on those wedge issues, it can make sense to single-issue vote on them. >


lecting Candidate 1 based on issues 1-4 lands you 100 preference units away from what you actually want, while single-issue voting for Candidate 2 only lands you 40 units away. It's rational to single-issue vote in a case like this.

I'm interested in this kind of thought experiment, but aren't you assuming that you weigh issues 1-5 equally? What if issue 1 was more important than issue 5? Or vice versa?
​

When the two sides are close together on most issues but far apart on some wedge issues, and you are much closer to one side than the other on those wedge issues, it can make sense to single-issue vote on them.

Tell me if you disagree, but to me, I think it's also important to disentangle what a party aspires to vs. what a party is able to deliver. In other words, maybe party A wants to increase taxes on the highest income bracket by an absolute 10% margin, while party B wants to cut taxes by 20%. However, when party A comes to power, they're only able to increase the marginal rate by 3% because of the influence of their most conservative members, the filibuster, etc.. Comparing +10% to -20% seems much less equivocal than +3% vs. the status quo. Anyway maybe I'm off on a tangent. >


I'm interested in this kind of thought experiment, but aren't you assuming that you weigh issues 1-5 equally? What if issue 1 was more important than issue 5? Or vice versa?

I'm defining the abstract 'preference units' to be a constant value relating to your utility function (what you want and how much you want it), so here I've set up an example how much you care about the difference between you and the politician works out as I've explained.  In this system, if you cared about one issue more you'd increase the units measured for the same distant in policy space, basically, but I'm giving an example which I think can easily happen.

Tell me if you disagree, but to me, I think it's also important to disentangle what a party aspires to vs. what a party is able to deliver.

So, yes, I was originally going to write 2 examples instead of 1, but had to go back to work.  The second example would have been saying that you care about issues 1-5 equally, but issue 1 is very likely to actually be affected by who gets elected (eg abortion being completely flipped based on SC nominations o state assemblies) while the others are unlikely to change much no matter who wins (eg something like health insurance premiums or w/e).  
This is another case that I think supports my point, sometimes you want to single-issue vote for an issue that is very likely to be affected by the outcome of the election, even if that means your candidate disagrees with you on a bunch of static issues. >

The problem with this CMV (as it is with most CMV in regards to the american political system) is that you're focused on the symptoms and not the problem. Single issue voting is a symptom of a two party system, which is a symptom of FPTP elections. Fix the first two things, and politicians will be forced into a more nuanced, balanced position. 
Aside from that, I would never vote for someone because of a single issue, but I would definitely vote against someone because of a single issue (racism, misogyny, homophobia... transphobia...) basically any form of bigotry, because I feel that those issues taint an entire person's approach. They might be single words, but they extremely far-reaching issues with massive implications. >

Everyone has different priorities. Some prioritize borders, government assistance, money, or life.
Aside from these values, they're weighted differently. Like some believe that US border and government assistance are equivalent, like apples-to-oranges. But some believe that life and money are not equal, like apples-to-bridges.
The people that are single voters believe that life is valuable above all else. No amount of money should make it legal to "kill" another being (i.e. a baby).
.
I would assume you're against rape. Let's say there's a person that runs for president and they completely match with your believes, the program they propose 99% matches your beliefs - basically the perfect candidate, almost. Their only downfall is that they believe in the legalization of rape. Would you still vote for them when you agree with 99% of what they said? This is the same form of single-issue voting, just the inverse of it. >

Single issue voting is merely a product of the options.
Any voter is going to consider their own political policy ideas and the relative importance of each one. This includes not only the importance of advocating for policies toward this but also for not advocating polices against something.
When you see 'single issue' voters, you see people who have very strong political preferences toward very divisive political issues. Guns and Abortion come to mind immediately. If these are very important topics to you, you don't have many options politically. 
If you believe abortion is murder and this is very important to you, voting for a Democrat who is actively trying to expand the practice is just a no-go. It is not an option. It really does not matter too much the 'down level' policies when the major important one force your decision and eliminates other options.
In your car analysis. If you need a pickup truck that can tow 20,000lbs and there is only one model that can do it, what is the point talking about the 2 other options that don't meet your most important characteristic? And remember, in voting, there are only (2) viable choices most of the time, a Republican and a Democrat. (ignoring the local races here). This is the issue. For divisive issues, you may not get to the downlevel policies before your decision is made. 
Each voter is entitled to their own analysis of this and ability to vote however they feel best advocates what is most important to them.
The attempt to label 'single issue voters' is really a derogatory method to shame people and try to coerce them to vote differently. This goes right along with the idea that if you vote for someone, you are advocating for every policy position they have. Many here on Reddit have espoused this and cannot understand why some conservatives have simply started ignoring them for it. The most absurd of these claims was that if you cannot agree with everything, and own everything, then you shouldn't vote at all.  
In the end, what it really does is alienate you. If I vote for a specific candidate based on a policy position really important to me, there is a decent chance there are polices they advocate for that I disagree with. It was a compromise on my part. An attempt to shame me or to claim I agree with this 'downlevel' policy merely for my vote simply encourages me to shutdown dialogue with you. (and consider you an A-hole). It does not advance your goals, which I might have been agreeable too, at all. It may even turn me against your ideas based on your behavior when I was indifferent or even friendly toward your policy ideas. >

Let's say I'm in Germany in the early part of the 20th century. I'm also Jewish. Am I REALLY obligated to look into the Nazi party's detailed tax policy, transportation industry plans etc? Am I so wrong for saying "They want to kill me, that one issue is enough, it doesn't matter what they think on other issues".
If we can establish in that one extreme case that a single issue can be so vitally important that other stances don't matter, now we're just debating where that line is drawn. And lots of political issues can be issues of life or death. >

In most instances you would be right, however If some one believes that this single issue may mean life or death for a certain community or for themselves/ their family then that is the only issue that matters.
For example, your abortion example. A person who is anti abortion believes that each abortion costs a life, if that is their belief system then it makes sense that they would prioritise voting to save those lives. 
On the flip side, a person who is pro choice knows that banning abortion causes an increase in unsafe "back alley" abortions which often kill pregnant people or cause infertility or massive infection. They may also fear for what would happen to a person's future if they're forced to keep an unwanted pregnancy. It makes sense to vote to protect that right, for themselves and for the wider community. 
If say, a candidate was aligned with your view on an issue as big as that (on either side, either you believing their were millions of babies dying every year or you understand the harms caused by abortion bans and the lives they cost) but they are misaligned with your ideals about how schools should be funded and how the busses should run, for example, then it is down to you to weigh that up. 
Can you ignore the perceived death of children/ the deaths of women and girls in favour of your preferred method of funding schools and public access to transportation? >


It encourages voters to ignore gross deficits in character, judgment

What if my single issue is character (which includes judgment, integrity, morality, etc..) >

Then I would still argue that your approach is weaker than a more-holistic approach.
E.g., in my opinion, John McCain and Barack Obama were both men of good character. But to stop there would be a mistake, in my opinion. It would be important to consider their policy views, experience, etc., too.
Character is one of many important factors to consider.