Nonpolitical political Question

[ReluctantDebutant]

To keep this from breaking the rules we are only going to talk about political Party A (your party) or political Party B (the other party(s)) So please no alluding to any real parties let just keep this in the realm of hypotheticals and stay within the boundaries of the question.

Party A (your party) is running two candidates in a primary for a major national office. One candidate is CD/TS the other candidate is not but other then that they have the same leadership qualities and the same dedication to the party platform.

1.You have the rare opportunity to cast the deciding vote. Do you cast it for the CD/TS candidate and try to make a big leap forward for the CD/TS community or do you go with the other candidate fearing a CD/TS candidate will not survive the general election and lose and it is better to get Party A into office?

2. The CD/TS candidate loses the primary but Party B has nominated a CD/TS candidate. Does this change how you might vote in a general election?

[ReineD]

1. I would cast my vote based on their qualifications and their stance on issues, and not their gender.

2. No.

[julia marie]

I never vote based on a candidate's position or action on a single issue. I have to look at the totality of their positions and past actions, and I have never seen a case where you had the proverbial "all things being equal". And, yes, if a candidate in Party B was in sync with my thoughts on the majority of issues and one of those issues was support for CD/TS, I would happily cross party lines.

[Angela Campbell]

I agree. There is no such thing as both having the same qualifications or drive. I would cast my vote on who would do the better job no matter who it is. I would not care about a party platform either.

second question.....It would make a difference who I voted for after the primary only if I saw a better candidate emerge. CD/TS has little to do with it.

[Dawn cd]

I'm with Reine. I would vote for the best leader, not the preferred gender.

[LilSissyStevie]

I don't vote. It only encourages them.

[Dianne S]

I would vote based on the party and candidates' overall positions, not just one factor.

Making it concrete: Here in Canada, the Conservative party currently in power has shown quite surprising support for gay and TG rights. However, I still wouldn't vote for it because it takes too many other positions I disagree with.

[ReluctantDebutant]

I understand the voting for the most qualified and all the other issues but for the purposes of this hypothetical is that those qualities are equaled out among the two primary candidates and the only real differentiating characteristic is one is CD/TS the other isn't.


For myself the whole CD/TS/TG thing is a nonpolitical factor for me. If the CD/TS/TG was the best Party A was fielding this election round then I would have no problem voting for that person in a primary or general election. but if the competitor was just as good in the primary I would vote for the non-CD/TS/TG candidate as I would think the would have a better shot in the General election. And I guess I made it clear that a CD/TS/TG candidate would not get me to switch parties in a general election.

[nvlady]

All things being equal to me means that their chances in the general election would not be affected by the fact that they are CD, so I would vote for the CD.
Question number two, I would vote my party line, and anybody who would vote for the other party is a stupid, brainwashed idiot.
BTW I always vote the straight ####### ticket.

[Julie Gaum]

Agree with all who responded except for the one who doesn't vote for reasons beyond belief. How many people in how many countries have died before and dying now in order to win the right to vote regardless of whether they make the right choice for their country or not?
Julie

[Lorri_c]

All things being equal apart from the CD/TS status I would vote for the CD/TS. On another note - Eddie Izzard has said he is standing for London Mayor in 2020 and failing that an MP - that's somebody I can wholeheartedly support!

[Paulette]

While this is a good conversation, as someone who works in politics this whole discussion fails because FOLKS DO NOT VOTE! Recently in Los Angles the turn out to vote for mayor was less than 20% of the eligible voters. Now I am the first to say I do not mind any laws passed by a majority of the people even if they disagree with my correct position. What bothers me is when only 50% of the 30% who voted get to tell me I am wrong on the issue, that's 15% plus one person. Please when given the opportunity to vote, VOTE!!!

[Barbra P]

Personally I don’t see that being CD/TS would have any effect on a person’s qualifications for office. I don’t believe that it is possible to have two candidates from two different parties being equal in all other aspects other than one is CD/TG.

Let’s see if I can keep this non-political. Last November in a nearby city a conservative candidate and past City Councilman running for Mayor who was openly gay lost to a liberal ex-senator, ex-Congressman straight candidate. The gay issue did come up during the campaign and much was made of it in some parties so I’m sure it did affect the outcome to some degree. However it might be noteworthy that the majority of the gay community did not support the gay candidate. Unless you live in a vacuum you have undoubtedly seen the brouhaha that has developed and gained national attention over the Mayor’s harassment of women. I just don’t see how a candidate’s sexual preference or their gender preference has anything to do with my supporting or not supporting them. Had I the deciding vote in this neighboring city, the city wouldn’t be facing hundreds of millions in legal fees now, but neither would his being gay have been the reason I would have voted for him.

[Beverley Sims]

CD/TS just does not make any cut.
Male, female, convertible.
The best man/woman/man suited for the job gets it.
If it was a council vote on toilets and who sits where maybe the CD/TS would make the cut.
There is pecuniary interest there. :)

[Allison Chaynes]

I personally refuse to vote for a party because I believe the two we have in the US are way out of line and don't represent the people any more, if they ever really did. But to answer the question, I'm only looking at past behaviors and how I believe a candidate would vote. The answer to number 2 is, simply, if I feel that candidate is better qualified than the one that lost the primary I wanted to see win, then I'll consider voting that way, unless I decide to do a write in for someone else.

[docrobbysherry]

I just LOVE these, "What if---", threads! If only I could go back 60 years.

I was so good at playing those games back then!

[Miss Trudy]

Question 1: I would always vote on who I believed to be the best candidate, best matching my beliefs. Assuming they were equal candidates and their beliefs identical there is no doubt I would vote for the CD/TS candidate as I feel they would have that certain "extra" that may help further our cause.

Question 2: No! To me voting for a candidate just because they were CD/TS would be no different than voting for someone just because of their religion, ethnicity, etc. In order for our democracy to work we must vote the best candidates and not get lost on single issue candidates!

[Leona]

I'm going to prefer the CD/TS candidate over the other. Why? Because THAT candidate represents ME better than the other.

All other things being equal, of course.

This being a republic, I want someone in office who will represent my interests, and a CD/TS is much more likely to represent my interests than the other party. Period.

However, an exception is made if the CD/TS is the conservative, and I'm a raging liberal. I may still go for the liberal candidate. Sorry, you tried to abstract it past this, but this matters. The conservative can throw up whoever they want, and if that person toes the party line, I will NEVER vote for them, be they CD/TS or whatever. I would vote for a heteronormative cisgender liberal first.

So I assume your CD/TS candidate is part of the liberal party (whatever it happens to be, I AM in Texas after all) and has an otherwise liberal agenda, I will prefer that person over someone with an identical agenda that isn't CD/TS.

When the person assumes office, their agenda isn't as important as it was during the election. They may be faced with things we couldn't predict during the election, and I want that person to represent ME when faced with those things.

For the same reason, I'd probably pick a gay candidate over a straight one, but that one's iffy. I need to see core beliefs and how they describe them in terms of current campaign issues. But I still need to see core beliefs.

Disclaimer: I have voted based on ethnic status previously. I felt that candidate represented me not because of a common ethnicity, but because of a common background (having lived on food stamps, seeing prejudice in the workplace, etc.). I felt that that candidate's ethnicity conveyed certain traits that I had in common, and so I felt that he would represent me. I don't want to derail the thread towards getting it locked, but it's obvious who that candidate was....

[JamieG]

I vote for candidates based on issues, not on parties. One of the issues I support is LGBT rights, but it is not necessarily the dominant one. I woulld vote for the CD/TS candidate if they better matched my views than any other candidate. If all things were equal, I would probably give the nod to this candidate because even if they don't win, I want my vote to show my support.

[DonnaT]

I vote for candidates based on issues, not on parties. One of the issues I support is LGBT rights, but it is not necessarily the dominant one. I woulld vote for the CD/TS candidate if they better matched my views than any other candidate. If all things were equal, I would probably give the nod to this candidate because even if they don't win, I want my vote to show my support.

sounds about right to me too.

[GaleWarning]

I'm a tactical voter. Depending on the issues, and what I believed to be the wishes of the majority, I would vote for the person more willing to work for her/his electorate, and not for the one who is self-seeking or simply a party lackey.

No.

[ReluctantDebutant]

It is good to hear so many picking substance over identity. I hear so many Political "Experts" try to put so much importance on a candidate's identity and how it will attract the right number of voters these days. I think it is hogwash among real voters.

[Vickie_CDTV]

I vote for the most qualified candidate, I don't care if they are trans or not. As history as taught us time and time again, just because politicians who happen to fall into group X get elected does not mean things will improve whatsoever for everyday people who are also in group X.

[Leona]

I want leadership. Given two candidates, where one promises me everything I want but is a wuss, and one who promises only some of what I want but is made out of steel, I vote for the steel. I want some progress vs no progress.

[NicoleScott]

There are one-issue voters. I don't sell out my vote for any one issue. As an occasional dresser, the TG status of a candidate is way way down the list of considerations.

[Krististeph]

all else being equal, if the TG candidate not set things back, sure. More important to me than picking the best candidate (because you can never really know, after all) is to monitor them closely once elected. Politicians, like litter boxes, should be tended to often and changed regularly.
Additionally, the real work and advances should come from the people, too many people a leader thinking of 'Santa Claus' rather than just a front man- people are the real political power, and that fortunately is how we survive lousy politicians, whereas some other countries do not.

Same reason we do not let little kids carry matches- they may be good kids overall, but you never know when one might have a weakness.

(says the t-babe from a state with a 50% felony conviction rate on its governors)

[Cheryl T]

Track record on issues is the most important factor to me. I don't care if one is post-op TS or Cd or whatever. If they don't possess the record on issues that matter to me they won't get my vote.

Voting for someone because of something they do, like CD, or racing cars or whatever is the same as voting for them based on race or religion. It's biased and unrelated to the job.

[Tess]

If only it was as simple as "all things being equal". Will it be best qualified...doubt it because that doesn't seem to be a factor in most elections. Issues...generally better at determining the level of support but who knows where they really stand once they get to the general election. Past record...maybe, maybe not since politicians often run away from their record and get away with it. We all like to think we vote for someone because we like were they stand on the issues but we also want our party to win. Better an electable candidate we aren't totally comfortable with than having someone win who we don't agree with at all. CD/Trans, who cares. If they can win and I agree with most of their positions then they've got my vote.

[bcpmax]

All else being Equal, I would vote for the CD/TS candidate. The quality of being a CD or TS, while having nothing to do with the candidates leadership ability, may make him/her more understanding of CD/TS issues.

Also, Visibility leads to Normalcy. I believe a member of the CD/TS community running, and possibly winning, in a general election would be a big step forward the general public's understanding and acceptance of cross dressers and transsexuals.