Would you vote for a generally well-qualified person who happened to be...
 

In the poll for this thread, check all options that apply. We'll have our own TFP version. Be honest, keep in mind that it's an anonymous poll- this will give us the best numbers.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h2...GALvotefor.gif

Taken from http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm (on 2/26/7, may not be a permanent link).

In this thread, I want to focus more on the order of the categories, than the categories themselves individually.

Why do you think it is that people are more likely to vote in a homosexual president than an atheist one? Why do you think that people are more likely to vote in someone who is black, than a woman? Do you agree with the order of some of these? Which groups do you think you'd not vote for, based solely on this one factor?

So, check all the categories of people that you'd vote for, and then let's get a discussion going on why certain groups are perceived overall as being more or less capable, based solely on the one characteristic, than another.

I'd vote for any of them provided they can do the job and they won't get preachy about their religion (or lack of in the case of the atheist).

Wow...so...pretty much anybody has the ability, or the potential, if you will, to be elected...except an atheist.

Damn...I feel kinda downtrodden.

Anybody care to join me in a rounding rendition of "We Shall Overcome"?

It also happens to be the case that atheism is the easiest of these traits to hide. Membership in an organized religion is probably traceable, homosexuality is traceable unless you spend your entire adult life denying a fundamental fact about yourself, and the other categories are visually apparent. While I find it disheartening that 15% of TFPers, let alone 53% of Americans, are so religiously prejudiced, atheists at least have the option of keeping their infidel status hidden.

EDIT: And what the hell is up with Mormon-haters on this website? I thought we were supposed to be progressive.

Do you really think that the press wouldn't shine a giant light on that fact? :)

I don't think it's a conscious dislike, so much as a simple observation of whether or not a person of that religion would have a value system compatible with what someone would accept as a president.

Being open and talking about this is the best way to accomplish being progressive, not all agreeing with each other because we all want to appear to love everyone and everything on the planet. :)

It's also really important that people are honest with the poll, so let's steer away from bashing the results, lest people start to fear their opinion will be attacked and the participation goes down.

Of course they would... but only if they knew about it. Just like environmentally conscious woodsmen, atheists should "leave no trace". :shakehead: I wish it were otherwise, but if I were an atheist interested in seeking public office in the future, I would scrupulously avoid mentioning my atheism or joining organizations for atheists. What would Uncle Tom think?

Does it make me a bad person if I'd vote for anyone except the old guy and the Mormon? Should I really even be admitting this publicly? Honestly, I feel pretty good about the old guy part, but the fact that I'm a little unsure about the Mormon bit is kind of unnerving to me personally. I've known some pretty decent people who happened to be Mormon...but the way I've had the religion presented to me has always made me think "who the fuck can dig this shit?" from an atheist position, its hard enough to really understand anyone having a strong belief in Christian theology, but at least Catholicism has all the cool rituals and Middle Age wars, saints showing up in the moss on Church walls, etc. I found it interesting that I'm sort of ok with a Catholic in office, but not a Mormon.

On the general ordering, I have to admit I have no clue as the ordering of some of these, and I think its (obviously part of the point of the poll) interesting for the Clinton/O'Bama run. I personally think that the split between atheist and homosexual is pretty meaningless; pretty much, I don't think a lot of people are interested in either being elected, which I find pretty messed up. The rest I can't really make much sense of right now.

I would vote for any of them providing I was enthusiastic about their political vision. Admittedly, some I would be more hesitant of than others. But, let's say, if a Mormon ran for president as a democrat and I found that they most closely represented my views, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for them. Although, that scenario is highly unlikely given some obvious philisophical differences we would have.

the word is QUALIFIED.... so long as they aren't an asshole...

I voted yes to everyone but the mormon. I might change my mind if I learned more (positive imo) stuff about them....but they seem to have some bad press. For some reason, I associate of those guys with 15 wives that make their daughters marry their brothers with mormons. :confused:
In regards of not wanting to vote for an to atheist....what a bunch of hooey! :D Atheists....we have our work cut out for us......let's get our butts in gear and "let our little lights shine". ;) :lol:

I voted for everyone. As Cynthetiq pointed out, either you're qualified or not. Even more to the point, either I agree with you enough to vote for you or not.

The reason I'm singling the point above out is because it's pretty close-minded. The mainstream LSD church rejected plural marriages well over 100 years ago. Lots of Mormons are mainstream, albeit the right side of mainstream. There are excommunicated members of the Church that still subscribe to the practice (Warren Jeffs, etc.), but vast majority of Mormons find it as repellant as the rest of the country, particularly the way that Fundamentalist Mormons practice it (i.e. forced marriages of underaged girls).

For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been Mormon. I identify myself as "agnotistic" for the simple reason that there's not shorter version of "don't care".

I'll be honest - I checked off everyone but the mormon.

I read a few books about the history and evolution of the mormon faith last year. There is a substantial doctrine in the church about the political destiny of the mormon faith - specifically that they will save the United States when "the Constitution hangs by a thread" and remake the nation as a righteous and faithful one.

Given the church's fabled ability to enforce compliance with doctrine, history of outright bigotry and violence, and the apparent willingness to manipulate public perception of their doctrines for political expediency I would not feel comfortable voting for a mormon candidate.

I'm not sure if that makes me religionist or what, but these are my honest feelings.

Only if I'm a bad person too. Yeah, the old guy part was just about health, mental stability, physical endurance for a tough job, that sort of thing. And the Mormon thing - unless they're a non-practicing Mormon, I don't see the average Mormon being able to be a political figure without their religious beliefs becoming a large factor in their politics. And I would not want that in a leader. Now, it would depend on the person, their history, and their platform, but this can only be a generalization. Everyone else - I've seen enough moderate persons from each general group that I wouldn't be inclined to pigeon-hole their beliefs or politics.

My opinion seems closed minded because I don't know that much about mormons at this time and choose to be cautious. My opinion could change with more knowledge.
The LSD church :confused: , do you mean Latter Day Saints? If I was a mormon, I might be upset that the press often has referred to the people who practice the forced marriage of underage girls as mormon sects then.

They are and they do. :)

I think that "misinformed" or "not well enough informed" can be confused as closed-minded, at times. I think this is mostly due to the fact that not everyone shares your desire to be more well-informed about things they talk about. Many are satisfied to talk on about something knowing full-well they are not fully informed, and don't care to be. :)

As for the "LSD" (supposed to be LDS), an ex of mine was Mormon, and I used to make that typo CONSTANTLY. lol...

First, let me apologize if you think I was trying to flame you, because I wasn't. That said, it seems that you don't know much about Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (LDS for short). The term "Mormon" is short for a practicioner in that particular church.

Second, and I really don't want to get too far off topic here, but your original post confused plural marriages and incest. Even the excommunicated Fundamentalist Mormons who have been kicked out of the great church would never force incest on a young girl. They may very well force her to marry a much older man that she doesn't like, but they would never force her to marry her uncle, which is what your post stated.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that I would have enough in common with a practicing Mormon to vote for him or her, but their religion would not preclude me from voting for them. Their religion is simply a sign of their other beliefs.

They may not force incest, but it is common (due to the other common practice of re-marriage) in the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints for men to marry their stepdaughters and otherwise for girls to be married to non-blood relatives that they grew up knowing as authority figures. Which is disturbing enough.

But to be clear, these are things that go on in the isolated sub-sects of fundamentalist Mormonism.

I left out the Catholic, the Jew, and the Mormon. And the old guy.

Needless to say, I'd vote for an Atheist. :lol:

I guess I might vote for a Catholic. I just don't automatically have a lot of trust for anyone whose first description of themselves includes their religion.

I grew up in Salt Lake City, and the first 1/3 of my life was ruled by Mormons. If you want bars outlawed nationwide and big chunks of major metropolitan areas turned into reflecting pool gardens, a Mormon would be a good president.

With everything that's going on in the Middle East right now, it's not the right time for us to have our first Jewish president. We need someone who can talk to everyone in the region, and many of them would refuse to sit down with a Jew. I say that as an official Honorary Jew, DNC (Damn Near Converted).

I left out the old guy because there's almost no chance he'd be plugged into what young (and even middle-aged) Americans are up to.

is this strictly about presidential elections, or is this everything?

i left out the mormon and the catholic. I'm perfectly fine with an old guy, if he is qualified, great, hopefully he wont die in office, but we'll get a few years out of him... mormons just scare me, seriously, same goes for catholic. although I'm an atheist, i am ok with the jew, as long as they don't have an over zealous opinion of the middle east.

A black woman homosexual atheist president would work for me, unless she was prejudiced against white male straight believers. C'mon!

The fundamental problem with this poll is that it abstracts away some important factors. Namely, in a real U.S. election, you are given a choice between two candidates. If Candidate A loses, then Candidate B will be elected.

My problem, then, with asserting that you are unwilling to vote for a [group] is that it seems to imply that you would rather vote for a non-[group] with a disagreeable ideology than for a [group] who better represents your ideological committments. In addition to being extremely non-ideological, this position strikes me as bigoted, by which I mean that it requires you to paint all members of a group as sharing an undesirable characteristic. So, while some 72-year-olds are in bad mental or physical health, I think it is highly inappropriate to categorically decide to not vote for someone in that category just because it is not uncommon for them to possess a negative characteristic.

The majority of people belonging to any social category whatsoever would make very poor Presidents: why hold this specifically against minority groups? This kind of reactionary intolerance is not something I have come to expect from TFP.

I'm confused if this is a popularity contest or an election of a figure who I hope to represent me.

I didn't check Catholic or Mormon, but it wasn't because I dislike Catholics or Mormons.

In deciding the future of the United States, and representing my ideals (as we're all constituents of the President), I don't want them making decisions for me, if it can be helped. They might be qualified, but if they're going to be introducing "faith-based initiatives" or "bringing the bible into schools" or what-have-you, I'd prefer to vote for someone who had ideals more similar to mine.

Likewise I failed to vote for the older gentleman simply because I don't think they'd adequately represent the concerns of my demographic (much younger). Most of my election concerns represent technology and it's future in our country, and the idea that a 72 year old man understands "The Internets" anything like my generation is ridiculous at best.

It is because of this that I don't take any 'offense' at this poll, despite being the lowest class. It doesn't say that 53% of people hate atheists. It says that 53% of people would rather have someone who represented THEIR religion in office. Just as I don't want faith-based initiatives, the massive Christian population in the United States probably doesn't want 'science-based initiatives' either. This is about voting, not tolerance.

I chose against the 72 year old because I don't want a deteriorating president. I chose against the Mormon because of their belief in the gathering of Israel and the restoration of the Ten Tribes being rebuilt here in America. That presents a dangerous implication about the direction that a Mormon president could take, and that the president could justify that by his or her faith.

I don't have a problem voting for a person of any faith, provided that their faith does not interfere with the decisions that have to be made as a public leader. Someone's religion shouldn't be seen as a handicap unless it is clear that they don't believe in the same seperation of church and state that I do. That is the distinguishment that needs to be made. I know plenty of Catholics and Mormons who are as fully supportive of the seperation of church and state as I am.

I probably wouldn't vote for a 72-year-old as of now. But given what I've learned about aging from my parents, and from some of my college professors, I probably would down the line. I know a professor who is 71 and is finally retiring--I was shocked to find out he was 71! He looks and acts like a much younger man. My father will be 60 this spring, and I remember his dad at around that age--it's very different. I should also note that he'll be 60 and he's definitely not out of the loop--and neither is Professor Nye. So I guess age shouldn't be a liability either.

Personally, I prefer to take each candidate as they come, regardless of religion, age, skin color, political affiliation, gender, or sex, and evaluate them based on whether or not their beliefs coincide closely with my own. I don't like to make blanket statements, if possible.

I'm still pondering the 'an ex was a Mormon'....I thought that a)they weren't supposed to 'date' outside of their religion and b)remain virginal....
I didn't vote on any; Richard Nixon was a Quaker-we see how much that background influenced him:rolleyes: Reagan was married, divorced, remarried-that didn't hinder his conservative moralistic views; Kennedy was a devout Catholic, but his progressiveness and 'amoralistic' private life belied that.
Of all the choices, I would probably not vote for a Jewish candidate simply based on our precarious standings with the Middle East. Any other religious background can swing from the 'eh' to the devout, but say "jewish" and it's all up for grabs.

JFK while running had cohesive statements regarding church and state, either trying to support his candidacy, or what he believed valid. I'm guessing the latter. May I attempt a little brevity? :No.

Interesting poll.

I left out catholic, hispanic, mormon, married 3 times, and 72 years old. I guess you could say I'm picky. I'm pretty tired of religion at this point. If someone believes in God, but doesn't base their campaign around it, I'm ok. As far as hispanics go, I'm going to admit to a little racism against them - I try to see the best in people, but I have never met a hispanic person that I would vote for. Most cling to a heritage that personifies 3rd world countries. Married 3 times is a judgement call. 72 years old is dipping too far back in time when what I want is progression.

Yes, but the real question is, would you vote for me?

Married three times would have me questioning their judgement. None of the rest matter to me.

Since I'm older, I call 72 tale end of prime of life.....old is after 80, imo. So a 72 year old could be great, with lots of skill and experience.

I wouldn't vote for a 3 time loser or an old fogey.
Wouldn't think much about religion if I didn't have to (so long as it wasn't central to the campaign).

Some of those "labels" are things over which one has zero choice/control. One doesn't choose their parent or their sex or even their religion (at birth), so to be a black person or a woman, for example, is a pointless category for me. I also don't care if you're homosexual, have been married 3 times, or if you are 72 years old. I don't even have problem if one has a faith or doesn't. My major concern is if or how these "labels" inform one decision(s). If being a Mormon, for instance, forces you to feel like you should or could infringe on certain people practices or what people practice, then yes I would have problem with that. I guess my point is that as long as who or what you are doesn't inform you to infringe on people rights or force you to make decisions that would, I have no problem with what a person "happens to be."

Interestingly, being white and being male are excluded from the poll. I suppose this is deliberate (to prove a point?). I could be wrong (and I am okay with that), but the exclusion of white and male suggest that two "labels" represent some sort of privilege, because if you are white or male and better yet white and male, one doesn't have to make considerations as to whether they will vote for you.

I've lived in Utah most of my life; there is no way in HELL I'd vote for a Mormon candidate. Biased as that may seem, I just couldn't do it. Not to mention my ideals clash with most Mormon ideals, so it most likely wouldn't be an issue anyway.

I doubt I'd vote for a 72 year old, for most of the reasons above. Not health reasons, but because the world is changing quickly and *most* of the older folks I know haven't come close to catching up.

Lurs, you make some interesting points, most of which I agree with. I checked all boxes because there's nothing that will preclude me from voting for someone beyond the issues.

As far as "white" and "male" (and might as well throw "Protestant" in there) being excluded from the poll, I think that it's safe to say that since the vast majority of politicians in the US in all offices fit at least 2 out of 3, none would cause an immediate exclusion for voters. I sincerely doubt that we can find anyone on this board that would honestly say that they would not vote for a white male Protestant candidate simple because he can be described with those 3 adjectives. The fact that he's a Nazi or a Communist might be enough on its own (yes, I realize the irony of the religion, but I'm making a point). Given that there has only been 1 Catholic President and no others in the poll descritpion lends itself to my arguement pretty neatly I think.

I don't know how I missed that one, but very good point.

Unfortunately, that leaves out pretty much everyone that runs for president. :D

It would be telling to see the results if two of the categories were "republican" or "democrat".

I would bet the atheists and the ho-mer-sexuals might not feel so bad.

I didn't vote for these because:
Catholic
Jewish
Hispanic
Mormon: religion. I'm sick of hearing about it. It should not influence them.
72 years old: I don't know what were voting for but i want a leader that's well aware of everything current. he wouldnt be too familiar with education at that age.