Yes, single-issue voters exist. For many, just saying that you’re anti-abortion is enough.

This isn’t even just an US American issue. Source: the current governnent of Finland.

Honestly I generally vote against, not for. There is not usually anyone I feel really good about voting for. So I vote defensively. It hasn’t worked lately.

Most voters are making their choice based on some combination of inane nonsense and personal greed.

Most register either as republicans or democrats and they vote same.

It’s really a team sport.

Yup. They find the button that says “select all” and matches their party.

It certainly can seem like that, but the biggest problem is our voting system makes it work like that.

With a winner takes all voting system, and only two effective parties in power, everyone is basically stuck with “horrible monster who wants to kill everything in know and love” and “someone close to what I want kinda”.

So people tend to vote among party lines because that’s all they can do.

For example, where I live, both candidates have been anti trans. One’s way worse about it and the other is, in my opinion, probably just saying some rhetoric to try to appeal to some voting base she normally can’t reach. So I am going to have to choose the lesser of two evils, because the person running against her is from a party that actively wants to exterminate trans people, even though the other candidate sucks.

In short, Americans don’t vote for, they vote against.

uhhh…I like money

I would venture to say so. I don’t know many people that have time to research the 50 candidates on the preliminary voting sheet. Then the list is still long on whoever gets on the main ballot. And don’t forget researching the policies you’ll be voting on. Most voters just parrot what they’re told and have no idea what they vote for. And adding in, there’s no repercussions for candidates that state what they represent and then vote against it after being elected.

I’d never vote for a fucking pigeon.

All Americans are free to do so.

In the primaries, people will vote for their favorite candidate in the party they’re registered with. In the general, you have two choices and one is usually a Democrat and the other Republican. There are a couple “independents” that have made it through. That’s how it works in a first past the post voting system. At that point you’re likely voting for the lesser of two evils but good candidates can make it through.

It’s a shit system, but some people will abstain because they think that a protest non vote in the general is some way of protesting. The math doesn’t add up and it’s why Trump is president. Too many idiots decided that Kamala wasn’t good enough, even though she was clearly, on all levels, better than Trump. I didn’t love her, but I knew that if she won, the states and the world would be in a better place. You’ll heard those idiots parroting shit about her being pro Isreal, but anyone with half a brain could understand that Trump was going to be far worse for everything, including the Isreal conflict, than Harris.

What choice do they have, literally. First past the post voting automatically leads to a two party system, and if you are not booked to one side, you have to choose your candidate based on some metric.

I mean we unironically allow (Christian) churches to act as polling locations for the majority of the US and hardly anyone I know sees an issue with that. We aren’t a nation of very smart people.

It depends on which level you’re talking about. At the federal level, there are generally only two meaningful choices, both selected by the wealthy class in this country and placed there to ensure there’s no meaningful change that benefits the poor and working class.

Our only real power is local. Even state-level politics are largely controlled by the rich now.