>

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?
/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.