A Question about Voting
Today we're having our gubernatorial (sp? - I hate that word) primaries in Illinois and as I left the polling place, I once again was left to wonder:
If you have before you a person that you know nothing about (not even so much as an ad speaking about their "beliefs" or "platform"), is it wiser to simply vote for that person because they're onthe ticket, or NOT to?
My (possibly faulty) assumption is that, it is wiser to leave some of these obscure positions and names blank - let the people who know something about it vote one way or another. However, I fully realize that some people just blindly vote down party lines, and circle every uncontested candidate they see on the page.
What do you guys think? I wish this were discussed in the media a little more on some of the serious news and politics programs. My feeling is, if you know nothing about a candidate(s), don't vote for that role. Let someone else (who presumably has more knowledge than you do) vote for that role.
Today I voted to elect one party's gubernatorial (theres that stupid word again - "Well Gyyolllleee GOOBER!") candidate, Attourney General, Secretary of State, and Senatorial candidates - I didn't vote for local Sheriff, local treasurer, etc. Because I knew absolutely nothing about these people.
It seems to me this is a sort of no-win situation and a major flaw in the way we vote. I wonder how we could solve this problem....
If you have before you a person that you know nothing about (not even so much as an ad speaking about their "beliefs" or "platform"), is it wiser to simply vote for that person because they're onthe ticket, or NOT to?
My (possibly faulty) assumption is that, it is wiser to leave some of these obscure positions and names blank - let the people who know something about it vote one way or another. However, I fully realize that some people just blindly vote down party lines, and circle every uncontested candidate they see on the page.
What do you guys think? I wish this were discussed in the media a little more on some of the serious news and politics programs. My feeling is, if you know nothing about a candidate(s), don't vote for that role. Let someone else (who presumably has more knowledge than you do) vote for that role.
Today I voted to elect one party's gubernatorial (theres that stupid word again - "Well Gyyolllleee GOOBER!") candidate, Attourney General, Secretary of State, and Senatorial candidates - I didn't vote for local Sheriff, local treasurer, etc. Because I knew absolutely nothing about these people.
It seems to me this is a sort of no-win situation and a major flaw in the way we vote. I wonder how we could solve this problem....
Comments
<strong>
It seems to me this is a sort of no-win situation and a major flaw in the way we vote. I wonder how we could solve this problem....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dictatorship?
Seriously though, I wonder if it would be a good idea to have some plain-vanilla information about each candidate at the polling place. Or instead of all these gaudy mailers that flood our mailbox, have the major papers devote a couple pages to just describing each candidate's agenda, without saying a word about credibility, the other candidates,etc. It should look more like an Excel table than an editorial, in other words!
[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
I really got into politics when I was just coming around voting age - I watched all the political shows, subscribed to magazines, read all the opinion columns.
I really knew (or thought I knew) a lot about the individual candidates and issues that were up, and I voted for people on an individual basis - I split my vote a lot.
But then I came to believe that the best predictor of candidates' behavior and impact is their party affiliation. So lately I've just voted a straight ticket. But if someone was a true maverick in the party, I'm not sure what I'd do.
And I don't know what to do if there is no party affiliation.
I think we vote too much. I'd rather not have so many referenda, and I'd rather not vote for judges and sheriffs and the like.
And the whole multiple-candidate system, with President, Senate, and House, as well as state governor and legislature, is really a pain. If we just had a straight European-style parliamentary system, it would be much easier on our weak, Jerry Springer-dulled minds.
OMG. You're kidding right? This is why we get boneheads elected into office. Do you ever watch TeeVee and see some moron congressman and you say to yourself, "who voted this moron in?", then you see his party affiliation and say, "Oh wait, I did. My bad!"
<strong>Good idea. I hereby nominate Bono for US Dictatorship. He has to save America from going to hell in a handbasket before he can begin saving the World in general!
No way man. Bono isn't even American and besides, he'd be too nice. We need someone who will rule with an iron fist. We need someone who thinks he knows whats best for America. Someone we can all look up to. A role model. I nominate:
Alec Baldwin
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I don't think that's working either.
:eek:
yeah but we're not talking about Cuba.
It's just the principle of the matter. When we vote, there must be a choice.
One of these days, nobody else will bother to vote, and I'll answer the phone and they'll say to me, "Congratulations, Mr. Mojo the Monkey! You're the new Soil and Water Commissioner for Ramsey County, Minnesota!"
MOJO!!!!
Aw shucks, I missed you too, Mojo!
<strong>But then I came to believe that the best predictor of candidates' behavior and impact is their party affiliation. So lately I've just voted a straight ticket.
OMG. You're kidding right? This is why we get boneheads elected into office. Do you ever watch TeeVee and see some moron congressman and you say to yourself, "who voted this moron in?", then you see his party affiliation and say, "Oh wait, I did. My bad!"</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I have done that. The thing is, a vote is a choice. It's either that bonehead or the other one, who's probably also a bonehead, but more importantly who belongs to a party that passes laws with which I disagree.
I stand by my belief that party affiliation has the most impact. I think we vote too much on personality.
Let me give you an example. I'm a Democrat, but when I lived in Indiana, I voted for Lugar for Senate. His opponent seemed like a jackass, and Lugar is a very serious guy, and not too far right that it bothered me.
But after voting for him, the Republicans took control of the Senate (it was 1994), which I didn't want. Everything changes when one party takes control from another - which bills come up for votes, whether they get out of committee, what hearings are held, etc.
And generally, Lugar votes with Republicans, so Republican bills get passed. I still like Lugar, but if I lived there now, I wouldn't vote for him again.
<strong>
No way man. Bono isn't even American and besides, he'd be too nice. We need someone who will rule with an iron fist. We need someone who thinks he knows whats best for America. Someone we can all look up to. A role model. I nominate:
Alec Baldwin
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
OMG!!!! LOL!!!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
"You know people in this country are dumb when everyone is given the most options for the least important things - things they can buy usually. Ice Cream? We Got 31 flavors - you can't go wrong there. Pizza? No less than 15 toppings - dig in. Major sources of network news? We're down to 7 or so, but still not bad. Political Parties? Oop sorry...we're down to 2 - can't help ya there."
I don't deliver it quite the way he does, but it makes you think...we focus on so much insignificant, material CRAP in this country - yet we leave an inflexible and ineffective political system in tact year after year. Not good.