As Dennis Porter notes, single-issue voting centers around a single point of passion for individuals.
Single-issue voters vote by a candidate’s stance on areas such as “gun rights, gay rights, marijuana or enviromental activities.”
Dennis proposes that single-issue voting Bitcoiners will vote for a candidate based solely on whether that candidate supports Bitcoin.
My thesis is that Bitcoiners can be a cohesive, united Bitcoin apolitical force, with some Bitcoiners falling into a single-issue voting group.
Some Bitcoiners Are Single-Issue Voters
I agree that, for some people, Bitcoin alignment will override every other issue and value that a candidate stands for. Bitcoin support will be seen as the higher good that overrides the candidate’s other agenda items. (They may believe — rightly or wrongly — that Bitcoin will fix all the other candidate misalignments on issues of their concern.)
In other cases, a candidate’s Bitcoin support could work as a decider between two candidates where both candidates are equal in all other ways for that voter.
Bitcoin candidates may also bring non-voting Bitcoiners out to the election booth.
However, a candidate simply being a Bitcoiner may well not compel some Bitcoin voters to choose them over a rival, a Bitcoin-supporting candidate over another candidate.
Single-Issue Bitcoin Voting Does Not Map To All Sovereign Issues
Some of the key issues for many Bitcoiners — self-sovereignty around individual rights, freedom and privacy — are why I do not see many Bitcoiners voting as a single-issue voting block.
For issues such as gun rights, gay rights, marijuana rights — or other areas such as pro-life or pro-choice — many and maybe even most Bitcoiners will not be single-issue voters and will not make this choice at the voting booth.
These areas are about individual rights and freedom for yourself and your friends and family members.
So let’s lay out some scenarios of different candidates.
A pro-Bitcoin candidate who does not support certain gun rights.
A pro-Bitcoin candidate who does not support gay rights.
A pro-Bitcoin candidate who does not support cannabis legalization.
A pro-Bitcoin candidate who does not support pro-choice.
A pro-Bitcoin candidate who does not fully or only partially supports Bitcoin privacy rights.
A pro-Bitcoin candidate who does not support the right to protest or opt out of systems.
A pro-Bitcoin candidate who mandates that we eat white chocolate (Fact: It’s not even chocolate).
Let’s look at some voters and their different issues:
A Bitcoiner who fully supports the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
A Bitcoiner who fully supports gay rights.
A Bitcoiner who is pro-cannabis legalization.
A Bitcoiner who is pro-choice.
A Bitcoiner who deems Bitcoin privacy to be of the utmost importance.
A Bitcoiner who protests or opts out of certain systems.
A Bitcoiner who is pro-choice of chocolate or even no chocolate.
Obviously, the last bullet of each example is an exaggeration. (Or is it a metaphor?)
All of the above Bitcoin voter issues are about self-sovereignty.
Individual rights and freedoms are issues that unite most Bitcoiners.
However, they do not unite Bitcoiners across all issues around all individual rights in the wider world.
In addition, freedom of choice within various rights does not live and breathe as a single issue that unites politicians across the political spectrum.
Would any of these voters vote for a Bitcoin candidate that is working to take away their (or those close to them) freedom and rights?
We are first individuals and next tribal, family or group-oriented. As a parent or caretaker, child or sibling, friend or colleague, we are usually motivated to protect our rights and that of our immediate families and friends first.
Bitcoiners As Single-Issue Voting Versus Bitcoin As A Singular Apolitical Force
If we pan out to the wider world, could you see most Bitcoiners voting for a Bitcoin leader who would restrict the rights of certain groups of people? Would we vote for international leaders who confined certain people to camps, refused them bank accounts, or monitored or restricted their purchases, lifestyles, speech or ability to vote?
If we would not want to vote for that in the wider world, then why would we vote for that in the U.S.?
Instead, I see two larger, more cohesive, and even more powerful Bitcoin groups.
Second, politicians who support Bitcoin could unite on the single issue of Bitcoin. Many already are. Any Bitcoin politician should be able to align on Bitcoin common ground with anyBitcoin-aligned candidate.
Note: One caveat is that just like many Bitcoiners vary on opinions and facts within the ecosystem, it is likely that many Bitcoin-aligned candidates will vary on opinions or statements about similar areas as well. Often with a lack of accuracy.
That said, Bitcoin politicians could align on Bitcoin even if they have a strong misalignment on other issues. Currently, the political sides look like this:
By its nature, bitcoin is freedom money and money for people with different views of how to transact in life. (The axiom is that Bitcoin is money for enemies. However, everyone who does not agree with your views and actions is not necessarily your enemy.)
It is possible that the underlying ethos of Bitcoincould move the political needle toward collaboration, coordination and compromise on other areas that involve the freedom to choose.