Ideology: The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

This was the definition I was thinking of. Unfortunately, I had to dig through a bunch of definitions based in myth and religion, which means our miscommunication is understandable.

What I mean is that everybody decides who they will vote for based on their principles and ‘ideas’ about what society needs. Some anchor those beliefs in their religious texts, and some (like you and I) based on secular logic.

Ideologues (people who strictly follow an ideology) are not necessarily uncompromising, because they may be following an ideology that demands they work together with people. I would guess based on your comments that you are an ideologue for a secular, compromising ideology. And what I meant by ‘poorly-defined’ is that there is no mainstream definition for it. But again – I think we’re using different definitions of the word ideology.

All I was trying to get at, is that I would be classified as a swing voter because I can not be expected to vote D or R reliably every time; both parties only follow half of what I believe at best. But that does not mean I am not an ideologue or that ideologues are necessarily as messed up as psycho-fundamentalist-christians/muslims/whatever.

It seems to me even people who might be claiming to vote for outcomes are just voting for some poorly defined ideology. Unless I’ve missed something?

As a general rule ideologues of any stripe have a hard time believing in the existence of the non-ideological.

Christian fundamentalists insist on defining humanists as a religion, for an example, because they apparently literally cannot comprehend the existence of a non-religious person.

As a very ideological voter, I can certainly support the idea of getting good results but it makes me a little sick to my stomach when leaders consider the “ends to justify the means”. Bush is only trying to keep us safe by waging all these wars because he’s more concerned with results than with the process (processes being defined by your principles and ideology). See where that kind of thinking has got us?

Although I believe in small, limited government, I also happen to like a lot of Obama’s ideas. The fact that he’s second only to Paul when it comes to his aura of sincerity and honesty also makes him an option I’d be willing to vote for. The potential of an Obama administration certainly has me excited for some things like more transparent government and limited lobbyist power; but that’s ideology, not results – the results will (hopefully) come after we vote.

It seems to me even people who might be claiming to vote for outcomes are just voting for some poorly defined ideology. Unless I’ve missed something?

So while there’s nothing wrong with someone who holds centrist type positions (a little of both but not too far in either direction) deciding that certain candidates of each party who are less ideological might fulfill that voter’s preferences, it is a sign of a lack of understanding and thoughtfulness that other people look at the situation without even realizing that the two different ideological poles represent two completely different sets of problem solving tools.