To Be or Not to Be a One-Issue Voter

In twelfth grade government, our teacher listed to the class several bad voting habits. Number one on the list was—as you might expect—not voting. Despite its prominent position, however, not voting as a habit made a recurring appearance in my life every two years afterward. There were several other don’ts on the list I cannot remember anymore (I’m sure I took them as seriously as I took the first), but one sin I have reflected on from time to time came near the end of the list: don’t be a one-issue voter.

At the time, I instinctually agreed with my teacher. The criticism of one-issue voting, almost exclusively applied to the topic of abortion, seemed clear. It wasn’t until a couple years later that its obviousness came into question. Could there be a time to be a one-issue voter?

Putting aside my own thoughts on the pro-life/pro-choice debate, could it be appropriate for someone to vote solely on the profundity of a single issue? I think, certainly yes—theoretically, a proposed solution to an issue could hold that much weight. But, let’s make the question a little more immediate and meaningful: does the current abortion debate warrant single-issue voting?

The case for yes is most easily made by the right, because it is, after all, an issue of life and death. When you assert that life begins at a certain point—whether it be at some biological marker like a heartbeat or an ontological claim like conception—then any destruction of that life after that point is, by definition, murder. All other assertions about women’s rights, male legislators’ lack of proximity to the issue, quality of life, and even hypocrisy become moot. None of it matters because preventing murder takes precedence.

And this, of course, extends to voting on representatives. None of a rep’s other platform positions matter, because the legalization of murder is on the line. The killing must be stopped.

The left’s defense of being a one-issue voter is, in my opinion, harder to make, but it’s still there. If one can build up the weight and necessity of pro-choice legislation enough, it too could warrant being the single issue worthy of attention.

I have some sympathy for this line of thinking. It does seem possible that single-issue voting could be warranted and that my government teacher was wrong. But ultimately, I find two main problems with this approach.

The first is more specific to the topic of abortion, though it could be applied to other issues—it is the problem of ambiguity. While preventing murder may seem like a cut-and-dry issue, even it can be complex and multi-layered. One wrinkle is that no one knows when life begins. This applies to people on both sides of the argument—does life start at conception or twenty-six weeks or the day of birth? Is it predestined from time immemorial or does it not really start until they start forming memories. Basing it in any scientific data points seems problematic for staying consistent after birth or in light of Theseus’s Paradox. Another wrinkle is in some of those fringe cases we like to bring up. When the mother’s life is at stake, we are presented with a truly complex ethical dilemma, one on par with the trolley problem—by no stretch of the imagination is the answer obvious, which life would garner preference. How can abortion warrant complete loyalty if no coherent solution is available?

The second problem with single-issue voting is platform inconsistency. This is the problem that would demand listing the behavior among other undesirable habits in a government course. It is highly unlikely that a party platform would capture all ethical standards—and is made almost impossible given a two-party system. To this one might insist that the gravity of murder outweighs all other positions, but this again ignores the complexity and nuance of party platforms. Though it may be less direct, a party’s position on economics, welfare, infrastructure, and the environment all bear on the life—and death—of the nation’s citizens. Intermediate steps do not dismiss the importance of every other law. 

We ought to continue debating this issue—it certainly deserves that. My friend Mitch has championed the right side of the argument and inspired the writing of this post. Another friend has approached the issue from the left. In both of these articles, I see wrestling with complex ideas that, notwithstanding their conclusions, stop short of warranting single-issue voting. We need to care about the issue, but we can’t let it consume us. There’s a lot more that needs our attention.