>

My family lives on meat we hunt. That is literally how we survive the year. We hit about a month where food was really running low this year.
I'm a registered Democrat. I'm LGBT and disabled -- and I mostly vote that way. but, when talk of gun bans come up that would literally cause me to die, I have to look first and foremost at that issue. Are those other issues important to me? Absoeffinglutely, but LGBT rights and disability reform, and adoption reform and nineteen other policies will not help me if I am dead.
/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. >

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 >

!delta
If candidate A supported policies I supported, but also supported a violent mob that would disrupt the peaceful transition of power, while candidate B supported policies I didn't, but supported the fundamentals of the democratic process, then yes, I would also only vote for candidate B based on that "single issue." I think this sort of "meta-issue," for lack of a better word, is a useful exception to my current paradigm.
Thanks for your comment. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/calvicstaff (4∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Voting is nothing more than a representation of your input, your voice and interests 
Therefore, I don’t see how any kind of that could be a poor approach. If that single issue is that important, if that single issue is so important that it dwarfs any other concern, then they are voting correctly, according to how they view the world. 
Consider that this might be a question of your frustration with them, as they are voting for candidates that you view as idiotic or morally bankrupt. Well, everyone seems to view their opponents that way nowadays. They don’t share that negative perception, and they won’t, until they do. Or maybe they never will. 
For instance; I view all democrats and republicans alike as feckless hyper-ambitious narcissistic and nihilistic puppets. You might find that point of view annoying; in fact I bet you do. I might find your point of view as something negative for some other reason. We’re not going to change each others minds, though. That’s a question of our worldviews, of our understanding of the justice of the world around us. So then to say that someone just “should” share your worldview and see your opponents the way you do is, I’d argue, very wishful and naive thinking. It’s not going to happen. 
What I can say for sure, though, is that if you make a choice to vote for something based on how you see the world, you are voting on what you see as the right choice. It’s only the wrong choice, for me. Not for you. It is totally subjective, it always is. >

But you're ignoring the fact that that single issue implies a gross deficit in character on the part of the other side to such a voter. >

Could you explain this more? I don't think I follow you completely. >

Single-issue voting virtually never actually happens.  That's just the story people use to ad hoc rationalize their vote.
Take Donald Trump.  There were around 100 million alternative candidates who also would choose to restrict abortion.  Therefore, abortion cannot plausibly explain on its own why someone voted for Trump.
Trump could not win abortion voters, because there were alternatives that would have satisfied them just as well.  Trump won, so in aggregate there must have been reasons to differentiate him.  His being against abortion is just not unique enough.
His most unique qualities are the combination of delusionally confident, rich, and willing to run for president.  Those are more likely to explain how he got votes, because they are more likely to differentiate him from the alternatives.  Being anti-abortionist does virtually zero work for him that running as a Republican doesn't already do, which is itself next to nothing compared to the qualities that actually make him unique.
So if someone claims to be a single-issue voter, they are almost certainly lying to themselves. >


Single-issue voting virtually never actually happens. That's just the story people use to ad hoc rationalize their vote.
Take Donald Trump. There were around 100 million alternative candidates who also would choose to restrict abortion. Therefore, abortion cannot plausibly explain on its own why someone voted for Trump.

This is just not true.
For the 2016 Presidential election, you had (2) viable candidates, a Republican and a Democrat. There were not 100 million other choices.
You can go to the primaries - and even there, a LOT of people didn't get to make the choice. I live in a state where the primary is late so it never matters. I didn't get to make that choice. Even for people in states where it mattered, they could have voted for someone else. It does not mean they won.
Ultimately it's the fall election that matters and for abortion, there was one candidate who was anti-abortion and one that was pro-choice. If abortion was what was important to you, there was only (1) viable choice for your policy preference. That would be 'single issue' voting. >

The race narrowed as a result of voting.  Trump was an outsider and only became a plausible candidate because of voting in the earlier state primaries.  But even prior to that, he only was a primary contender because of polling.  People were planning to vote on him.  And he was only on the bigger polls because his name came up in exploratory polls.  People who liked him had to like him for reasons other than a single issue like abortion.  And those people were not so different from who voted in the general election.  Abortion was just a handy reason to justify the vote. >


The race narrowed as a result of voting.

Yes - where a significant portion of the voting public did NOT vote the same way. 

Trump was an outsider and only became a plausible candidate because of voting in the earlier state primaries.

Again, where a very sizable portion did not vote for him. (either out of state or for another candidate)

But even prior to that, he only was a primary contender because of polling.

Polling is not voting. Not only that, polling at 40% in primaries means 60% of your party were for others. (split among other candidates of course). 
But, in the end. What really matters and where single issue voters are found is the fall election. You know, the election which actually chose the person to serve in office. Which, how many options were there again? Oh yea - only (2) viable candidates. If you had a divisive issue as a very important issue to you, you didn't have a choice. There was only (1) candidate whose stated policy aligned with yours. >

Everyone that didn't vote for Trump still had to make a choice based on more than abortion.  Because whoever their choice was, there would have been alternatives who hadvthe same views on abortion.  It is not mathematocally possible to narrow your preference down without considering other factors.  And whatever those factors are, they'd be in play all along the way. >


Everyone that didn't vote for Trump still had to make a choice based on more than abortion.

Why? Seriously. You go back to the fall election. (1) choice. THAT IS WHERE SINGLE ISSUE VOTING COMES FROM
If abortion is the most important policy to you, why do you think the 'other ideas' really matter too much? Why would a person be expected to compromise on what they think is most important?
You likely personally have a more balanced policy perspective where you are not passioate about specific issues. But some people are. 

Because whoever their choice was, there would have been alternatives who hadvthe same views on abortion.

Do you know what happened in the primaries and polling? A lot of people did not vote for Trump. That does not sound like their vote in the primary was single issue at all. What's even more - a lot of people didn't get to make other choices because the primary was over before they got to vote. 
BUT THE PRIMARY IS NOT THE GENERAL ELECTION. 
In the GENERAL ELECTION, there are (2) candidates, who have different positions on very divisive issues. If those divisive issues are important to a person, they can be the 'SINGLE ISSUE' to define how they vote. >

Obviously being a more educated voter is better? If sifting through piles of bullshit to find out the truth about every political candidate/issue is not how I want to spend my life, then I don’t have to. Beliefs are not instinctual or easy to create. I don’t really think much else needs to be said. >

To be fair, if someone think babies are being murdered, that is a pretty strong single issue that would be hard to beat.