system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Political "flip-flopping" on important issues between past and present campaigns is not only necessary, but admirable.

For simplicity's sake, I'm going to discuss this issue as it pertains to the U.S. presidential elections. 

Thousands of people review the past voting records and public positions taken by presidential candidates during their campaigns. Citizens who oppose one candidate or the other will point out the different positions these candidates had before and after they ran for president. We see these on YouTube a lot: one president making two contradictory statements at different points in time over and over again. It's often argued that this makes the candidate weak, a liar, disingenuous, etc. 

I believe that, so long as a presidential candidate doesn't make contradictory statements **within their presidential campaign**, flip-flopping is a non-issue. For instance, Obama running on a staunch pro-gun control campaign as an IL senator shouldn't be later criticized for taking a much more neutral position during his past two presidential campaigns. 

SIDE NOTE: I'm NOT speaking of Romney-esque flip-flopping where a presidential candidate changes his stance within the same presidential campaign. 

The foundation for my reasoning is this: candidates of any position have a mandate to represent and govern with their constituents in mind. A presidential candidate with a political background is transitioning from a micro level of politics to possibly the highest of macro levels. Therefore, in order to represent and govern all 50 states, a presidential candidate can and should alter his platform to better represent the United States as a whole. 

I will use Scott Walker as an example because the extremity of his campaign and multiple elections makes the discussion simpler. He was elected after running on a very right-wing balanced-budget campaign, and went to great lengths to balance Wisconsin's budget following his appointment. His methods were seen as so extreme (Google "Scott Walker collective bargaining" and do your research) that a recall election was eventually held. He won this election by *more* than he did in his previous election.  

Scott Walker is a clear cut example of a politician who is responsible for following through with promises to one's constituents. He won two elections, one being the first victorious recall election in US history, by relatively large margins. 

Now, if Scott Walker ran for president on a much more economically moderate campaign, we would see this as a "contradiction" and he would be slammed for being disingenuous. I don't understand this. His aggressive balanced budget plan was mandated by the people of Wisconsin twice by a relatively large margin. Such an extreme balanced budget plan would probably *not* be mandated by the American people. 

Sticking to one's past public positions isn't just bad politics, it's bad governance. Adapting to a wider audience and following through with a modified campaign that reaches 50 rather than 1 state is necessary and admirable. 

CMV.
gpt
The problem isn't flip-flopping for valid reasons.  Valid reasons could include the serving different constituencies as you discussed.  It could also result from a candidate getting more information about a particular topic causing them to change their view on that topic.

The problem is pandering - which many people confuse (intentionally or unintentionally) with flip-flopping and refer to it as flip-flopping to discredit the pandering candidate.  Pandering is when you tell the audience you are currently addressing what you think they want to hear so you can get them to vote for you.  Romney didn't flip-flop.  Romney pandered.  Pandering works because people are morons.