"Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!"

Thanks Chris. You helped me solidify in my mind something that's been bugging me this whole time. Because my problem all along is simply that I didn't understand how anyone can cling to one issue to such a degree that he will (as I perceived it) blindly assign loyalties to the first candidate to raise his hand and say "I support/am against ____." Surely even such a large issue as the war isn't of a single dimension and cannot be solved as if it were. There are matters of diplomacy, war, strategy, and yes, the economy all of which play into the successful execution of a war strategy.

You helped me in my attempt to shoehorn Denny's thought process into my own in some manner, and for that I thank you... because I was about to give up.

And yet, I take issue with your summary of the argument insomuch as I still don't see what you're describing as a single-issue decision. If I weigh all of the factors, then the decision was a culmination of those factors pro and con. To borrow your example: if I'm out of peanut butter, the decision to go get more isn't merely weighed against the price of gas or the depth of the snow, but an assessment of the accumulated return on investment. Is a jar of peanut butter worth the return on a trip or do I wait? All factors are weighed, some given more weight than others, and some factors can indeed be equal. Hunger can only be my prime mover if I am either psychologically obsessed with peanut butter or we assume my cupboard is actually bare and my decision took on a portent beyond mere peanut butter. Otherwise, the thought experiment breaks down as I shrug and make grilled cheese.

Obviously I'm being a little silly, but as I see it, it's necessary to point out the very real peril of a wartime presidential election forces us to think in terms of portent and consequence in a manner in which we might normally let slide. In short, we cannot assume ideal circumstances in our experiment, which makes the conclusion that all decisions are ultimately single-issue driven overly simplistic. Your logic path is well and good when one of the two candidates speaks to at least one of your primary motivators, or if you're making a decision with multiple possible outcomes such as peanut butter or a car. But when the field of available choices is narrowed by outside forces, what do you do if no one meets your primary criterion? What if both of them do? ( Don't laugh, it could happen. If your core issue is certain aspects of immigration reform then all the candidates begin to look oddly similar...)

So... Do you stay home? Of course not.

Say that Denny wants to vote for a conservative candidate that speaks to his libertarian views on the narrow role of the presidency. Well and good, but none exists. So he goes down his list until he finds a candidate that speaks to the one thing remaining on his list that is written in red ink and votes for the guy he sees as best serving that issue -- in this case the war and that means McCain. McCain doesn't speak to his core issues - the role of the federal government - and neither do any of the others in either party. So he takes his second or third or tenth choice, moving down his list until he finds a candidate that suits him.

That's not single-issue voting. Or at least it doesn't fit my definition of single-issue voting. Which I admit is a summary of something I think Denny tried to say awhile back but it got drowned out. (My apologies)

I can't tell you how Denny thinks, per se. I can tell you that we disagree on certain salient details of constitutional law and one or two other things, and we agree that the government has taken too much power for itself and needs to cough it up. From recent discussions I've come to the following conclusion, and feel free to check me on this. What I see here is a decision made because his choices were limited for him by external forces and his more nuanced views could not be brought to play. That doesn't mean his choice lacks nuance or that he is ignoring the full panoply of issues. His core issues aren't being addressed by any of the candidates, so he has to chose based on the one core issue that is being addressed.

I retroactively object to calling this a "single- issue vote" simply because he only has one issue that he agrees with his candidate on. (Some of us should be so lucky.)

For most voters, the final decision comes down to weighed alternatives and sometimes, there is a single issue that puts one or the other over the top. But pretending that this is really voting on a single issue denies the complexity of the decision-making process.

Back to our decision-making & logic argument then. In a wide-open field with multiple possible choices and the very real possibility of getting close to your ideal choice, I see the equation working. In the binary state of the ballot, I think it breaks down.

In the binary decisions at the ballot box where we are constrained by the nature of the process from having the full panoply of choices to select from, this appears to be a single-issue decision but that doesn't make it so.

What about when the choice we would have made - based on the deal-breaking issue - isn't in the offing? Then a voter must then examine their views, match as many as possible to the expressed views and record of the candidates we do have to chose from, hold their noses and vote. In that case, the decision wasn't because of one issue, it was because the accumulation of multiple issues which tipped the scales in the direction of that candidate.

Decision making - even in constrained circumstances such as an election - is not often the result of a single deal-breaking issue burning a hole in your ballot (unless the candidates are so diametrically opposed as to become caricatures) but a series of conditional statements ("if____, then____") that ultimately lead to the most acceptable conclusion. Many factors weighed, some of them equally, building to a logical conclusion. Not one issue, but many contributing to our choice.

The more your available choices are narrowed for you, the more invisible this decision-making process becomes because external factors are limiting your ability to respond as you might or might want to. But that does not necessarily translate into a single-issue vote. And if it does, then the term is being artificially applied.

And yes, it's funny, but it's entirely possibly we could all end up voting for the same man for a whole host of different reasons. If I do, you can bet I'll have more than one of them... and here's the thing... and I think you will too.