I think this fall under the category of "grown folks disagree sometimes." Two people can have the same goal, but different approaches to the solution.

Imo, presidential elections are important, but in a much more abstract sense. I'd be more concerned if a couple had major differences about how the house should be run than I did if they had differences over how the country should be run.

At the panel on the impact of the life of Jackie Robinson at George Washington U. last week, a panelist was asked if Mrs. Rachel Robinson shared Jackie's GOP sentiments. The prof. who teaches the course said Rachel did not support Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon as her husband did (ran Rocky's '64 NY state campaign). Politicsare discussed, but not relationship-killers. More important to be spiritually-yoked than secularly yoked (dig Mary Matlin & James Carville- they ain't votin' for the same prez). Gov. Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver. Many cases.

Well Bijan, wouldn't Arnold and Maria be an example of one spouse forsaking their political beliefs for the other? Whether she personally subscribes to conservative thought or not, she's a Republican wife, and makes no qualms about it.

My folks have been married for almost 50 years, and I am certain that my mom often casts her vote for the "other" party just to antagonize my dad, who would vote for any living thing with a (D) next to its name on the ballot.

Little victories :)

Take the word of an old person: if disagreeing on who to vote for is going to cause problems in a relationship, it's already doomed. WAY more important stuff to deal with.

Theresa Heinz Kerry has never voted Democratic in an election Ambra. Not as big as deal as one might think at first.

But the question wasn't if it's a hinderance to the relationship. I'm certain many couples disagree on their picks and are just fine. (sidebar: Although, when I poked fun at ConservativeMatch.com last summer, a few people piped in to remind me that politics are "almost like a religion to some people". In which case, I'd think it rather important if the two happened to be on opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm inclined to think foundationally, there can sometimes be varying worldviews as the foundation of political disagreement. But whatever, tit for tat.)

The question wasn't really about that. The quest was is it wise to do so?

Don't the votes just cancel each other out in said geographical state?

I have discussed or read your sentiment with a lot of young people recently. I am not sure if it is part of the "ownership" of voting and being active in the political process or not. I am glad you are, at least, wondering how the process works between two people who have, under solemn oath, dedicated their lives to each other.

Therein lies the key. They have dedicated their lives to each other. Not some 8 eight year guy who has little or no effect in their lives personally. Yes the president of this nation does affect each of us. But in a large way vicariously through policies and budgets.

It is far more important to know who can directly influence how we live. Those principals are our cornerstones and foundations. Embracing God and knowing He is our guide through this life keep our lives in proper focus. It would be more difficult to live with someone with differing views religously than any other cultural bias. I empahsize this because so many people choose spouses with a laundry list of worldly needs, forgetting that without a solid foundation of harmonious beliefs all else will fail.

Who or what is at the center of the relationship? If politics are at the center, then yes it IS important. I don't see where too many successful marriages would have politics at the center, since they are relying on flawed people (some more flawed than others) for the marriage relationship.

If politics are not at the center, then it's no big deal if votes are cancelled. After the votes are counted we get the leaders we deserve anyhow.

Votes aren't tallied by household. In local elections they're counted individually, in national elections, the electors for each state vote for the candidate who amassed the most individual votes. Some households have 4 adults, some college frat houses have more than that.

Thanks everyone for your feedback thus far. Good stuff.

Yes Bijan, I realize that votes aren't tallied by household. I was speaking to the individual votes of a husband and wife for opposing candidates cancelling each other out.

MarcV: Okay, understandibly, politics is not at the center of a marriage. But aren't "politics" an indicator of philosophy, worldview and belief system?

Another question for anyone who wants it...if it's no big deal for a husband and wife to cancel eachother's vote out, then why do we continue to stress some sort of solidarity in voting amongst certain groups of people (e.g. the body of Christ, political parties, racial groups)?

Nykol, solidarity brings strength to causes. I do not personally believe we should use it as a litmus for voting. We have a right in this country to vote. We have individual responsibility and accountability. I cannot in good conscience even think to vote en masse because someone says I should. It is too important a decision to be lacadaisical about and I find it depressing to know so many people who are apathetic to the process. The only way we move forward and progress is by empowering ourselves with knowledge tempered with understanding.

I am a second genreation American and will always be grateful for the opportunity I have to be here in this country able to have a say in what goes on. My choice does not always prevail, but at least I participate.

Sorry Ambra, I should have used your first name too!

I guess I really don't understand the very premise of your question... I don't see a married couples votes "cancelling each other out" just because they disagree... they both are making individual votes according to their conscience... they are both contributing equally to the democratic process... i do NOT
see equivalence between these two situations:
A.) neither husband or wife (err, husband/husband or wife/wife too.. just to get your blood boiling a bit!) voting at all
B). both voting, but voting on opposite sides of whatever issue...
Do you, Ambra, view these two situations as equivalent?

Ambra:

Interesting question(s). However, I am not sure how far you are going to take this. Say my spouse and I don't cancel each other our --- what if my best friend and I cancel each other out? My mother and I? My sister and I? Many people vote for different parties based on perceptions rather than ideology. I know quite a few people who are conservative but will not vote republican because of the perception of racism. I must admit, I don't know anyone who is liberal who votes republican, but I think conservatives vote democrat for a variety of reasons --- not just ideology. Therefore, people can have basically the same ideology and still vote for opposite parties.

PDN

Jab: Just to get your blood boiling, I will disregard your second two scenarios in 'situation A'. ;-)

But to answer your question, yes I do see them as equivalent when the two are each voting for the two opposing candidates. 1 for Kerry and 1 for Bush in the same state? There's a waste of couple unity in my opinion. Even with the electoral college running the show, doesn't one divyed either way just neutralize things? Now 1 for Nader and 1 for Kerry is a slightly different story. Same with 1 for Petrouka and 1 for Bush. Still, it's kinda grey.

PDN: Yes, you make good points. So even given the fact that people can have the same ideology and vote for different people, wouldn't it still make sense for a husband and wife to wield their votes wisely?

I wouldn't take it as far as you suggested because we're not in "covenant" nor are we called to be "one" with our friends and family memebers (thank the Holy God above).

I'd put marriage in a different category. Wouldn't you?

I guess this brings up a whole other point which is whether the impact of our votes should even be a consideration over our moral choice. This is often the case with 3rd party candidates who'll never win. Then again, if there's no visibly good candidate, we'd still have to vote strategically for impact, so that my little theory goes out the window.

Ehh, it gets murky though because no matter the impact of the vote, I'd still argue that a husband and wife should attempt to be on one accord.

The further left you go on the political spectrum the more important politics becomes. Many leftists take the position that everything is politics. Conservatives who believe in limited government dismiss that idea. We also have religion, family, work, learning, friends, recreation, charity and other things which we feel are important but are not politics. Therefore as long as at least one partner is conservative and can change the subject, the marrage will be fine.

What really is hard to imagine though is the marrage of James Carville and Mary Matlin

My best friend at work is a Republican who married a Democrat. Things are changing though. Bill CLinton went a long way towards changing her opinions.

Not to pile on, but it's not uncommon, and not that difficult on a national level. Where it gets weird is where the couple splits on local candidate, like school boards, etc, where you actually know the person. Still, the blogosphere & the screaming-heads on TV aside, most people live most of their lives without thinking about politics.

Now if we were talking about a disagreement over which side of the bed to sleep on....

My wife moved here from Canada, and was rather apolitical for several years. Now that she has her green card and ss#, and had to endure 8 years of Clinton, she can't wait to vote for W. I am proud that for the first time, I will have the priveledge of voting with my wife. We are going to be first in line at 7am!

Uh, David, why is it difficult for you to imagine the Carville-Matlin marriage? They both seem quite bright, they love their kids,and they're in the same profession. The key is love (& respect).

The way I see it there are a few choices:
1. Husband and Wife vote their conscience, and don't discuss it ahead of time. So this well may mean that they vote differently.

2. Husband or Wife decides who to vote for and the other just follows along.

3. Husband and wife discuss and come to an agreement who to vote for.

Personally, I think 3 is the best case scenario, but that 1 is better than 2.

Ever since I got married in March, it is important to me that my husband and I are united, including at the voting booth. So we sit down before elections and discuss who is running, where our values are, etc. But we've also discussed what happens if we can't come to an agreement. -- If we both feel very strongly on opposite sides of a issue and discussion doesn't solve it.

My husband's preference at that point is (1) and mine is (2). I've taken him as the leader of my family. Shouldn't that extend to national matters as well in those cases where we can't come to an agreement? I don't know what will happen when it actually happens (Since it hasn't yet)... I can be very strong-willed when I get my back up.

But I do know that I would be miserable in a situation where I didn't agree politically most of the time with my husband. Because for me politics are just an extension of my other values. Obviously, it works for other couples.

But, in the end, faith, values, and other matters are way more important than who you vote for in the ballot box.

My mother-in-law mentioned the other day that she might not vote because my brother-in-law's vote would just cancel hers out. I find the idea of some one's vote canceling out someone else's to be totally idiotic. So what if couples don't agree on which candidate to vote for? It's not the end of the world. There are some things that couples absolutely must agree upon but politics isn't necessarily ine of them.

I cannot even begin to understand how Mary Matalin stops herself from murdering her husband (James Carville). I would NOT want to be in a relationship with a man who does not share my political views.

I think that generally a lot of people I know are single issue voters, or at most 2-issue voters. Whereas one partner might be concerned about 401K investments and health care costs, the other might not be as wrapped up in family finances and may feel more passionately about abortion and education. They don't collide because they may completely agree with each other, or more likely trust the others' opinion on the issue, but they just place emphasis on different things, which may lead you to different candidates. It always comes down to what you care most about and what you're able to put up with, b/c nobody agrees with either party 100% on all issues, and if you do or think you do you are more than likely running for president.