Today is election day. I'm pretty sure you knew that. Two phrases always strike me as misguided.
First, every four years we are treated to something like, "This is one of the most important elections in our history." It's as if the political pundits forgot what they said four years ago. But the benefit of a Presidential system is that we get a chance to vote a person in or out every four years. Because of the 22nd Amendment, we never get a guy for more than 8 years. So, it probably surpasses historical perspective to say that any one election is more historical than another. It simply isn't true, and the pundits will be saying the same thing in four more years especially after dissatisfaction with Obama grows (this isn't a claim about Obama per se, but a statement of general truth that people become dissatisfied with all Presidential candidates because they simply cannot do all that they promise). But I wish to make another point as well.
Second, many people say that, "Everyone should vote." I do not agree. Now, I think everyone should have the right to vote (over the age of 18), but I do not think everyone should vote. Millions of Americans are going to vote today that honestly have little or no clue on the issues. They will vote for Obama because he is articulate, good-looking, an excellent communicator, and will "fix" the economy. For some reason, in the last 80 years when the country wants a fixed economy they turn to Democrats. There's a good reason, I'm sure, but it's probably not a reason I agree with.
Americans will also vote for McCain because he's "experienced," tested, a straight-talker, or appropriately tempramental. In either case, though, people are voting on things that do not matter, and thus they are uninformed voters. It is my stance that uninformed voters should not vote. So what constitutes an informed voter? One who reads from at least 2 different sources of news about political issues and stances of the candidates. This may be buttressed by watching debates and seeing television news pieces, but if the television is one's only source of political news, I consider that person uninformed. Quite simply, television news isn't exhaustive enough to give good news. Here's an example of informed voting: when I voted today there were a myriad list of local/state judges and officials that I simply did not cast a vote for at all. In many cases, one could not even find political information at all as these candidates didn't have websites. Since I didn't know, I didn't vote at all, Democrat or Republican.
My stance is not that more people should vote, but that less people should vote. In our television age, more elections have been decided by charisma and money than any other factor. Since Kennedy, the candidate whose spent the most has won every election. This election will be no different. Does that reassure you in America's democracy?
So, don't vote today if you don't know.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
8 comments:
Well said. I get weary every election season of the platitudes from media hungry pundits, candidates, and celebrities telling us that it's our duty to vote. I do think we should vote, but only if we know what we're voting for. And frankly, charisma and a general warm feeling aren't going to save us. Having a war hero in office won't save us. If we're looking for that, we're misinformed about the nature of effective government, and we're putting our hope and faith in a person. When has that ever worked out for us?
So the more necessary responsibility for the American people is to know what's going on rather than to simply be "engaged" in the political process as another mouthpiece for a candidate or party. Holding our representatives accountable and keeping them in line is our duty, but voting alone does not accomplish this.
I appreciate this commentary by Derek Webb that highlights another reason Christians might need to withhold their vote today. I don't agree with everything he writes, but it is definitely something worth considering.
I totally agree. We have to many people that haven't thought through the process. This is one of the reasons why the founding fathers established electoral college to vote as well. They are supposed be the enlightened voters and save us from our mistakes. Though it doesn't work that way currently.
Yes, Gents, well said.
I think people should vote, but I think people should be informed. I think people should vote in local elections, and vote in Presidential off-years. I think people should read cultural gatekeepers like Time and NY Times even if they don't agree. People should read their local newspapers. And people should definately know what happens in Obama's first 100 days.
We can all agree on this... but it doesn't matter. Uneducated people will vote, because people like their own opinions. The solution is not to tell people not to vote, but to be voices of a different kind of rhetoric - while others call out, "everybody go vote," let us call out, "read before you vote." So, well said, but my pragmatic side points me in a slightly different direction.
(Tangent - speaking of the pragmatic side, we need a new strategy for engaging the pro-life cause. Three cheers for crisis pregnancy centers & adoption ministries, but our political strategies seem to have failed. Obama in the White House, Amendment 48 slammed in Colorado & the similar legislation in South Dakota rejected by ten points its second time around... What should we do? Engagement in the marketplace of ideas? The 95/10 Initiative of pro-life Democrats? Other? This is totally off topic, so ignore it if you wish, but I have to get this off my chest somewhere...)
Ben,
What you propose is interesting. If we must compromise to the Democratic side of the issue, then we must re-organize their priorities. They say they want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare. If we must compromise, then we must make abortions rare, safe, and lastly (and sadly) legal.
Thus, parental consent laws must still be pursued. We must also not give up on eliminating federal funding of abortion centers. We must still pass state laws to eradicate partial birth abortion. AND, we must think of other creative ways to make it rare. Got any?
I referred to the 95/10 Initiative, which is very comprehensive in its scope as it aims to reduce abortion by 95% over 10 years. That strikes me as a very ambitious goal, but, hey, aim high. It is a broad, government-funded plan. If it got implemented & worked, that could be enough for me to reconsider my personal political philosophy (keep gov't small). If it got to Obama's desk and he vetoed it because of his support from Planned Parenthood (whose business could be hurt significantly by a 95% reduction in abortion), I would fight hard for his rejection from office in 2012. As it is, I have hopes that he would sign it.
On a different (sad) note, I just learned that South Dakota Right to Life opposed the anti-abortion constitutional amendment in that state because it allowed for exceptions in the case of rape and incest (in addition to threat to the mother's life). Can we not accept the opportunity for a significant-though-not-total victory when we see one? Not to say that it would have passed with that support; who knows, maybe it helped make the amendment seem moderate.
Good post. But isn't the fact that everyone should vote (whether informed or not) the fuel of the democratic system? Whether informed or not it is the right for everyone to speak their mind in the form of a vote (however ridiculous some of the reasoning can be sometimes).
You say that everyone should have the right to vote but not everyone should practice that right. By saying that aren't you taking away the very right?
Elderly citizens or simply people who have incredibly busy lives might not be as informed as we are but I think their vote should still be exercised and their voice heard. That's the essence of democracy--- all voices heard no matter what.
Nope, I disagree. The essence of a functioning representative republic (which is more specifically what we are) is having an informed electorate participate in the macro decisions, such as candidate for the offices that make the micro decisions.
Taking it to the extreme, you can see that an ignorant electorate does not contribute to a functioning republic. For example, a completely ignorant voter walking into the voting booth is no more making a conscientious decision than he is playing a video game.
The mass Get Out the Vote campaigns, regardless of political persuasion, are merely an effort to manipulate a largely ignorant group of voters with simple platitudes or fear mongering to increase the votes for the candidate supported by the GOTV effort. As heartening as it may feel to say that everyone voting is a good thing, it is not necessarily so.
Now, my argument should not be construed to mean that there should be some sort of litmus test to allow citizens to vote other than the age minimum. But the fact that each election year we've got more and more people voting with arguably fewer informed individuals only cheapens the political process. The great downside to democracy is that it requires politicians to pander, promising things that can never be delivered, and then once in office making decisions strictly for the political capital they receive that will fuel their re-election bid.
So no, the RIGHT to vote shouldn't be taken from any non-felon over 18. But should they? That is a different question entirely.
Post a Comment