I’m not sure if this is the correct forum, but what do you do for voting when there are people running for office unopposed (i.e there is one name on the ballot for a particular position)? Do you look up who they are and everything? Do you abstain from voting for them or vote for them? I mean why is this even a thing, where there is only one person running?
When it’s happened around here, there is very little fanfare, the candidate usually makes their position known and news media simply says they are running unopposed. I’m not sure anyone bothers going to the polls!
Because legally, there has to be an election, but some places and offices there really is no contest.
I haven’t seen this beyond some county-level positions. When I see it on the ballot, I skip it.
I would think in light of what “might” occur within the Republican Party, that Mike Pence would become the “designator hitter” for the coming election. I really don’t know how one could call an unopposed election a true election in a free society. It makes me think of third world countries where no one shows up, dares to vote, or thinks the elections are rigged. I don’t really know a lot about the inner workings of politics so I am just guessing. Feel free to educate me. Peace.
Even if Trump were to drop out (highly unlikely, IMO), and Pence were to become the “designated hitter,” he would not be unopposed; Hillary, as well as Johnson, Castle, and several other minor-party candidates would still be running.
Here in Alabama I’ve seen unopposed candidates in some local (city/county) elections, as well as for some state-level offices, and at least this year our district’s representative in Congress is running unopposed. We have one senator running, and he has an opponent.
An unopposed candidate is going to win by default. If one does not feel that conscience will allow him to vote for an unopposed candidate because of his/her stance on the issues, then that particular contest can be skipped. It won’t make any difference in the outcome, but the voter will preserve his conscience.
For some offices you wonder why they require an election.
Does it really matter either way if a person votes for any of them? If you skip all the people the outcome is the same…although we have a moral obligation to vote so I don’t know if that impacts what you should do.
We do have a moral obligation to vote, but that obligation does not extent to voting for someone whose stand on the important issues disagrees with an informed conscience, but who is running unopposed. When one’s vote really will not count for anything (as in the case of an unopposed candidate, or a case where one candidate is leading the popularity polls by landslide proportions), then one is free to do what one’s conscience says to do, even if that means not voting in that particular race.
I am very interested in local politics so I tend to look up who people are and what they’ve done in office (if the incumbent) or at least what their stated agenda is. Sometimes I do vote for the unopposed candidate and sometimes not. For me it’s all about if I believe they are worthy of the office. I don’t vote to try to win, but at least I know I’m picking someone I believe will be competent.
What if I just don’t feel like looking up all the people (and seeing if I can find any information on them), and so I don’t vote for any of the unopposed people?
I don’t see a problem. Whether you vote for them or not, you have neither contributed to nor obstructed their inevitable victories.
Write yourself in as a candidate After all, we must vote for the best candidate.
Following up on my post #5, this morning’s paper has a sample ballot for Tuesday elections.
One of our incumbent senators is running against a Democratic opponent, and there is a two-way race in one of the school board districts (Rep vs Ind). In the 10 remaining state and local races, including the one for the House of Representatives, Republicans are running unopposed.