How would you vote? (details inside)

I always vote. I will vote for the less-unfavorable if that is all I have to vote for. A failure to vote is a vote in favor of the least desirable outcome.

I have no party loyalty (nor party membership). If Mo is the lesser of two evils (and if there aren’t any third party candidates), then I would vote for Mo.

I’m the same way, vote for the a-hole who will probably do the least damage.

It’d depend on the specifics, but I’d vote for the candidate I like better or dislike less, unless I thought it would do no good and have worse results somehow.

@ARE_you_kidding_me, @Zaku – given the above scenario, which would that be Curly or Mo?
Both espouse philosophies different from your own. The views of Curly are closer to your own but more extreme while those of Mo are more different from yours but less extreme.

I picture it as a number line where 0 is the center of the road, Curly is a 5, you (through Larry) are a 2 and Mo is a -2. (The Looneybin candidate, who didn’t have enough votes to get into the general election, would have been a -5 for balance.)

I will always vote in every election.

While it may be true that Mo’s the lesser of two evils with respect to ethics and integrity, his political stances and affiliations are in stark contrast to my own. At the same time, Curly is morally reprehensible and not fit to serve. I couldn’t vote for either man.

I’d write-in Larry’s name. In some ways, I’d be wasting my vote. In many other, meaningful ways, however, my vote wouldn’t be wasted at all.

I’m very politically active. Immediately after the election, I’d begin my efforts to make Curly or Mo a one-term official and get Larry re-elected.

I’d probably go with Mo. Good ethics and The lesser of two evils.

I’ll vote for the candidate who most closely matches my views (which are likely to be farther than ether Larry, Curly or Mo) on the broadest number of issues. Just as I always have.

And given this scenario @Darth_Algar would that be Mo or Curly?

I don’t vote on vagueries, I’d have to know details of each candidate’s policies on the specific issues. Candidates who offer only fluff and vague answers do not get my vote.

I’m not a centrist.

I will vote for the person who closest fits my views, regardless of party affiliation.

In my younger, less informed days, I switched to R to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

@rojo In the OP, you said that ”[Curly’s] views on the issues and how to solve them are not yours.” I’m not sure what the value of his beliefs being closer to my own is supposed to be when his views are not my own and I think he is unethical (which would make me wonder if his stated views are his real views). It seems that I have a choice between two people whose views are not my own, one of whom is also unethical. Furthermore, the OP stipulates that I have already come to the conclusion that Mo is the lesser of two evils. So why wouldn’t I vote for Mo?

It depends on specifics but a candidate can be closer to me politically but have one or two views that are basically unforivable and I would pick the next best. When you don’t have a political match to vote for it is simply damage control. May as well pull out some actuarial tables and forms at that point. Mo could be a -2 and closer to me as well as the lesser of the evils but still lose the vote. A good example was when Carson was saying all of that crap about the pyramids being for grain storage. Nothing else he said or stood for really mattered after that.

I would vote for Mo who would be better for the country than Curly who would be better for the party.

Not enough details. I am not a low information voter. I would have to do a lot more research on each of these Stooges and get back to you.

All I really know if that if Larry and Curly are carrying a 2X4, Mo will get hit in the head. That’s simply a fact, and there’s nothing to be done about it.

@rojo It’s hard for me to say without real examples, because my voting choices are almost always about what I think the best result will be for the things I care about. I tend not to care about political parties at all unless there are “party line” divides on issues I care about.

However without knowing details, I have strong feelings I would vote for Mo based on the following, each of which sounds like a good reason to vote Mo:

* ”[Curly’s] views on the issues and how to solve them are not yours, in fact you see him as unethical, despicable and destructive to the party and probably the country.”

* “you do not believe that [Curly] is anywhere near as capable as your Larry.” “you feel that of the two [Mo] is the lesser of the two evils. You question his ability but not his ethics or desires.”

Those conclusions, were they mine in the circumstances, would have me vote Mo.

However, your number line with 5, 2 and -2 isn’t commonly my situation. Typically I’m for the guy at 5, and if I were dictator, I’d be 10 (threaten to invade Brazil to stop deforestation, send Delta Force to take out poachers of endangered species in Africa). So it’s not often I find myself going for the -2. Also, it seems like the minus candidates are dialing up their extremism, too.

I would prefer, and we should have, the option of a vote of no confidence.

@SecondHandStoke Yes. Instant run-off voting would be even better.

Got to agree with @Zaku Instant Runoff Voting or Preferential Voting would help people like @DrasticDreamer who find themselves with limited choices and no third option. It would certainly weaken the power of both the Republican and the Democratic factions of the Corporate Party.

Note that having a ranked voting system and having a “no confidence” or “none of the above” option are not mutually exclusive. We could have both, which would make it all the more meaningful if and when the “none of the above” option won. There does need to be some sort of consequence for “none of the above” winning, though. One option is to make all of the candidates who lost to “none of the above” ineligible and then redo the election.