single issue voting for abortion, for president, for prolifers

I didn't say "no, Con doesn't know anyone like that". What I SAID was that we could not SEE those people, and so had no definite way of knowing A) that they exist, and B) that they do vote based on single issues. I said that the source was non-credible, not that it necessarily didn't exist. They then provided a link to a site where there are pro-choice people. But this is still missing the point: I didn't say that there weren't ANY people who voted only based on abortion. What I did say that the majority of the American PUBLIC did not vote based on abortion, and the Con team has not provided any evidence refuting this. Besides this, though the people at phatmass.com are very openly pro-life, this does not mean that they vote specifically based on who is pro-life and who is not. But I digress. The main point here is that Con team has NOT refuted the fact that several people is not of any consequence, and has not aptly proven that there are more than several people. If single-issue voting isn't a substantial problem, why are we even talking about it? There is no reason to waste our time on a small issue when we could be solving a larger one. "Even if most people don't vote only on abortion and I stated this, a significant amount of people do vote that way. You lose this point because I only say most don't that way, which does not translate into next to none vote that way." The Con has STILL not provided evidence that single-issue voting IS a large issue, they have simply STATED that it is a large issue, providing a link to some people who may or may not single-issue-vote on abortion. Other than one person's (and I'm just going to generalize and say one HIGH-SCHOOLER'S) opinion, we have absolutely no reason to believe that this IS a problem. The Con team MUST prove this because otherwise, the problem could very well be insignificant, and once again, not worth our time. "Single issue voting is sound if there's a decent chance for change on that topic. Social Security is a political football that's up for grabs right now. Abortion is not. One has a chance to change, the other does not." I'd simply like to point out that political mechanisms are impossible to predict with absolute certainty, and so there is still a possibility that the status quo will be changed. "There is no real political solution to those against abortion" Actually, I'm inclined to believe that there is, and it's built into the Democratic system. That solution is voting, and I stated this earlier. Their vote is not wasted because clearly, more people showing a certain sentiment means that that sentiment is more likely to be echoed in politicians' decisions. If enough people are showing that they will vote pro-life regardless of what else the pro-life candidate thinks, then the candidates will change their stances to reflect this. However, before voting day, there is no way to know how many people are going to vote pro-life, and so there is no way to tell in advance whether their efforts are wasted or not. And while the Con team can say that history tells that abortion rights won't change for a long time, they have no way of guaranteeing this. Maybe a plan could get passed that WOULD change the status quo, we have no way of knowing. Finally, to address something that the Con has not clarified in this entire debate: Why, specifically, is single-issue voting a bad thing? The Con team said that it was unwise, due to the fact that the votes would be "wasted", but in a country where children are taught that every vote counts, I find this hard to believe. How could you know in advance that your vote will NOT count? Your vote could be the one that puts the decision over the edge! Basically what I'm saying is, not voting for something you believe because it isn't a popular belief and so won't pass is a foolish idea, because you can never know for sure. What this all adds up to is this: single-issue voting is not a problem in any way. There are not many people doing it currently, and even if there were, it would STILL not have any legitimate negative effects to speak of. I hope that's all clear enough for you, dairygirl4u2c.