During the 2012 election cycle, an uber-liberal friend of mine asked me how I felt about "having to vote for Romney to get rid of Obama". I responded by saying "who says I'm voting for Romney? I'm a political conservative first, not a Republican."
As I told that friend, I don't vote against candidates. I vote for candidates who will represent and advance my political views (which include pro-life, pro-self-government, reduction of income taxes, permanent reduction of the size of federal government, pro-military, school choice, border protection, and pro-Christian religious freedom). Up until 2012, there were still some Republicans who represented my own interests. In 2012, not so much. I challenged my friend by asking "Why should anyone vote for a candidate who does not, or will not represent their interests?"
That's the whole point of representative government - the candidate that you vote for represents your interests. By voting for him or her, those interests become your interests. If your vote is "against" the liberal candidate, then you've signed your name to a blank check politically. Any policy can be enacted, any growth in government can occur, but you don't care so long as the other guy didn't win. You've thrown away your conscience, in order not to throw away your vote.
So in 2016, I'll be asking people these three questions:
Do you find that Hillary represents your political views? Not mine. She stands against many moral principles in which I strongly believe. If the Reps choose Romney, his religion would not deter me. Again, it's that simple.