To vote or not to vote - that is the question
Published Wed, Aug 13 2008 11:56 PM
Technorati Tags: Elections
On the occasion of my eighteenth birthday (very nearly thirty one years ago), I eagerly went out and registered to vote. I don't recall the exact date I registered to vote, but that's not important now. I registered as a Republican, but I didn't really have a clue why. Nevertheless, I went out and registered, and I've voted in every Presidential election since then (I missed the chance to vote against Jimmy Carter, since that was the year before I turned 18, but I was proud to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980), and in most Congressional and local elections wherever I have lived besides.
I've always known who I was voting for for President, and why. On the other hand, I haven't always voted wisely in other races, often (in those days) not knowing anything about the candidates or issues I voted for, and when I was much younger, occasionally (yes, I admit to having been this foolish in the past) “Christmas Treeing” my ballot, making random selections, or simply trying to choose a pretty pattern.
These days though, I try to do a bit of research, and vote based on how closely a candidate or issue fits with my beliefs of what is right and good. If I run across an issue I am not familiar with, I try to determine based upon the title on the ballot whether it comports with my beliefs. If I can't figure it out, I don't vote either way. The same goes when choosing candidates, although I'm much more inclined to vote for a Republican candidate I don't know than a Democrat that I do know — usually because the Democrat's policies are repugnant to me. For example, I will never vote for Patty Murray simply because I detest her political views and the things she has said and voted for in the past. Having said that though, simply having a D or an R after the candidate's name on a ballot is not enough to influence my vote. I find that despite my best intentions, I still leave one or two races or measures without a vote on my ballots more than I'd like.
More than one of my friends, relatives, and fellow bloggers have expressed an apathetic attitude toward voting. Some of them have wondered “why bother” because they don't see their vote making much of a difference.
For one thing, there are millions of other voters out there, “surely one vote can't make that big a difference”. Tell that to Dino Rossi and Chris Gregoire. Or tell it to Al Gore and George W. Bush. Here we have two elections that were decided by a very small margin — a margin that changed with every recount. In 2000, in Florida we were treated to hours of television coverage showing canvassers squinting through magnifying glasses trying to “divine the intent” of voters. It's plain that individual votes mattered in that case. And please… don't tell me that a mere scratch or dimple on a chad represents a voter's intent. We've all heard that argument before, and I just told you a couple of paragraphs ago… if I can't make a responsible choice in a particular race I'm GOING to undervote.
A second, and more telling reason why some of the people I know are apathetic about voting is frustration with their elected representatives. “They ignore why I voted for them”, or “They don't care about the people”. While this may indeed be the case, I think it's a lousy reason not to vote, and it says something more about the voter than the representative to me.
We all should know by now the primary purpose and job description of the career politician. Their whole reason for being in politics is to win elections. Career politicians will say and do anything to win votes. This is why, quite often, people will feel that politicians ignore their constituents. They'll say anything to win you over during the campaign, and then go on to do as they damned well please once they're in office. The attitudes of some make it plain that they really aren't interested in the voices of their constituents except during the campaign. Conservatives should remember this from the attitudes of a few Senators during the “amnesty” debates last year.
Voters that feel apathetic because their representatives don't listen to them have a choice. In the case of Representatives to Congress, they have that choice every two years. In the case of Senators, they have it every six years. If your Representative or Senator isn't representing you don't keep voting for him or her. Remember, that quote attributed to Albert Einstein?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
— Albert Einstein (attributed)
A third reason for apathy seems to be the “two party” system. It seems that we often end up having lame choices for candidates at election time. The apathetic voter blames this on the party. I wonder… how many of those apathetic voters voted during the primary elections? If you don't like your party's choice and you didn't vote against that choice in the primary election, who do you have to blame?
Now I can understand the frustration of not having a decent choice of candidates in the Presidential election. After all, the system of choosing a candidate there, for both major parties is totally screwed up. The staggered system of primaries often means that by the time many voters get to choose, voters in other States have already made the list of available candidates pretty close to unacceptable. That happened for me in this year's Republican Party primaries. By the time the vote got out of Florida, John McCain was the defacto candidate for the Republican Party. What a lame choice that left the Republican Party with. John McCain's no conservative, and most conservatives I know are going to have to hold their nose when they vote in November.
The right of the people to vote (at least for members of the House of Representatives) is established in Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.
Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Here, the qualifications for voting for a member of the House of Representatives are outlined only in the broadest of senses. The founders intended to allow the States to determine who was eligible to vote. Each State was free to determine on its own the eligibility requirements for voters, but if you could vote for representatives in the most numerous branch of your State's legislature, you could vote for members of the House of Representatives in the federal government.
NOTHING ELSE in the Constitution (at least, not until it was amended) is said about the People's right to vote. NOTHING. In the Constitution before it was amended, the People were not explicitly given the right to vote for ANYONE other than members of the House of Representatives.
The State Legislatures chose the Senators. The State Legislatures determined the manner of choosing Electors for the Presidential election. In neither of these elections are the People mentioned. I can only conclude that under the unamended Constitution, the People were not expected to vote for members of the Senate or for the President or Vice President.
The very fact that the framers explicitly set up the House of Representatives as the People's House should underscore the importance of voting every two years for your federal Representative. Today's Founder's Quote Daily might help convince you as well…
If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
-- James Madison (Federalist No. 57, 19 February 1788)
Be therefore, above all of a “vigilant and manly spirit” (You ladies, be of a vigilant and womanly spirit, it's OK, I think we're really talking about maturity and fortitude rather than gender). Nourish freedom and be nourished by it. VOTE and “restrain the House of Representatives”.
Of course today our voting rights have been greatly expanded. The fourteenth amendment didn't actually establish a right to vote, but it did describe the consequences to the States for not allowing twenty-one year old male citizens of the United States to vote. If there were ever a restriction of the right to vote to only white land-owners (none exists in the Constitution at any time in our history), no such distinction appears here.
Amendment XIV
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
This is the first of the amendments to address the right to vote, and it provides that the representation of a state will be reduced in direct proportion to the number of male citizens twenty-one years old that are denied the right to vote. Note that specific exceptions are given, participation in rebellion, or other crime. It should be plain that the Constitution condones depriving felons of the right to vote.
It should also be noted that this amendment applies to State elections for executive, and judicial officers, as well as State Legislatures. It should also be noted that this is the first time when the popular vote for the electors for President and Vice-President is provided for, that Representatives in Congress are mentioned but that SENATORS ARE NOT mentioned. It's clear that by 1866 at least that it was expected that the choice of electors for Presidential elections be opened to the People, although nothing in the fourteenth amendment requires that. The Constitution still leaves the manner of choosing of the electors up to the State Legislatures.
I don't think this point ever gets enough stress. The President and Vice-President are never chosen by the People. NEVER. NEVER. People that continue to whine about the fact that George W. Bush failed to win the popular vote and therefore shouldn't be President miss this point entirely, and they really annoy me. Let me emphasize it once more. THE POPULAR VOTE HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE SELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It never has (and, despite the apparent wish of some media types, neither do “exit polls”). This cannot be changed by legislation. This cannot be changed by a vote of the people. This cannot be changed by the courts. The ONLY way that this can be changed is by a Constitutional amendment.
So, despite the media hype, it should be clear that your vote for your federal Representative should be much more important to you than your vote for President. Yes, the Presidential election gets much more media coverage, but this is only natural. After all, of the two races, only the Presidential race is a nationwide race. Elections for the House of Representatives only take place a the State level. For that matter, in the larger states, elections for the House of Representatives only take place at the district level within a State.
BUT, under the plan of the Constitution, your federal Congressional Representative represents you. He (or she) is answerable to you every two years at the ballot box. THIS person is responsible for your setting your taxes. This person is responsible for ensuring that YOU are represented in the federal Congress. If he or she doesn't vote the way YOU want him or her to vote in Congress, then perhaps you should vote for someone else the next time around. Representative's terms are limited to two years for a reason — take advantage of that fact. Vote for someone that represents YOU, not for someone that represents Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner.
If YOU believe in limited government and lower taxes, vote for the candidate in your Congressional race that also believes in limited government and lower taxes. If on the other hand you believe in socialism, big government and redistributionist tax policies vote on Wednesday rather than Tuesday. OK, I'm just kidding on that last one. If you believe in socialism, big government and redistributionist tax policies then vote for the candidate that will represent you. Even so, I'd like the opportunity to try to talk you out of your belief in socialism, big government and redistributionist tax policies. The point is, vote for the person that will best represent YOU, not the person that “your party”, your friends, or “all the cool people” are voting for.
The right to vote was further defined by the fifteenth amendment. This amendment prohibits denying a person the right to vote based upon their race, their skin color, or whether they were a slave in the past.
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
To me, this amendment gets it exactly right in so many ways. It very specifically prohibits any consideration of race or color from entering into whether a person may vote or not. This ought to be a model for all of our dealings regarding race or color — we simply should not consider it in any way. Remember, according to the Declaration of Independence “all men are created equal”. It's just a shame that it took until 1869 to get this passed through Congress and until 1870 to get it ratified.
In 1912, Congress passed the seventeenth amendment, which was ratified in 1913. I haven't got much good to say about this amendment, and I've addressed my objections to it in previous posts. Even so, it's there, it's a part of our Constitution, so I'm afraid that whether I like it or not I have to accept it, and it affects your right to vote. The seventeenth amendment provides for the popular election of Senators. Just as Article I Section 2 of the Constitution vaguely defined the qualifications of electors, the seventeenth amendment does as well, in fact it defines the qualifications of electors for the Senate in exactly the same way.
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
I think that's almost enough about that. You get to vote for your Senator. The States thought that it was important enough to ensure their representation in the Senate that this amendment was ratified, even if some of them didn't think it was important enough to ensure their representation in the Senate to make sure that their Legislature chose a Senator for them as the Constitution originally specified.
Since the States saw it as so important that their representation in the Senate should be ensured, despite the consequences to States rights that popular election of Senators implied, it behooves us to do better than our legislatures did and choose our Senators wisely.
If your Senator is up for election this year, think about this. Your vote for Senate may well be more important than your vote for President. Many conservatives I know are going to vote for John McCain for President — Not because they like John McCain, but rather because the next President may well be nominating new Justices to the Supreme Court. Remember though that the President can only NOMINATE the Justices. If the Senate doesn't APPROVE them, they won't be confirmed and seated. If your Senate seat is up for grabs in this year's election and you're going to vote for John McCain because of who he might appoint to the bench, or as ambassadors, you'd do well to also vote for someone that's likely to vote the way you want them to when it comes time to confirm those nominations.
This is no time for apathy.
The next amendment to affect our right to vote was the nineteenth amendment.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is the fourth of the amendments to address the right to vote, and it gives women the right to vote. Just as with the fifteenth amendment, it took us long enough. In any case, as time goes by, more and more our Constitution is emphasizing equality for our citizens. You'd think it wouldn't be necessary, considering the fourteenth amendment's injunction upon the states to treat all citizens equally. Nevertheless, we'll run into at least one more amendment prohibiting discrimination regarding the right to vote shortly.
The twentyfourth amendment prevents another injustice with regard to voting.
Amendment XXIV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You don't have to be a taxpayer to vote. If you owe taxes, but you don't pay them, you can't be denied the right to vote because of that. I guess this is an exception to the case where you can be denied your right to vote for committing a crime. Poll taxes are unconstitutional.
Members of the Democratic Party and the political left are fond of reminding us of this one. When they object to voter identification requirements, they typically argue that requiring people to present a State issued photo identification card of some sort amounts to an unconstitutional “poll tax”. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous argument, when you consider that we require a State issued photo identification card before you are granted the privilege (not the right, the privilege) of driving a motorized vehicle upon our public roads, and the same people that the Democratic Party suggests would find it an onerous burden to have to present photo ID at the polls seem to be able to afford to drive a car.
But then, if we allow this argument on the part of the left, then I think it's only fair to turn the tables on them and apply a similar argument to another of their voting initiatives. Many counties are turning to “all mail” voting systems. Some of them are providing return postage with their ballot envelopes, but not all of them. Some of the ones that do aren't providing sufficient postage when you consider the size and weight of the ballot and the postage provided. Since postage fees are paid to the government, doesn't the requirement of paying additional, or all of the postage amount to an unconstitutional poll tax?
I mean — if we're picking nits and all, let's get down to it!
Finally, we come to the last of the Constitutional amendments that affect our right to vote. The twentysixth amendment, and the one that prompted me to go out and vote for Ronald Reagan in that first Presidential election in which I was eligible to vote (even though I was twentyone when I cast my ballot).
Amendment XXVI
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Sometimes I wonder about the wisdom of this particular amendment. I remember the irresponsible way I approached many elections shortly after I had amassed enough years to be granted the franchise. It seems to me that many of today's young people have been cheated of a decent civics education. They haven't been taught the meaning of our Constitution, or the principles of our founding fathers. They're mostly of the “I want it all, and I want it now” mentality that breeds socialist tendencies in voters.
Nevertheless, I was quite excited to be able to cast my vote in that Presidential Election so long ago. It's plain from the number of amendments to our Constitution that concern the right to vote that our nation believes it to be important that we all vote.
Don't be apathetic. Vote next election day. Just think about it before you do.
Please?
This linkfest is for the 14th through the 18th of August, 2008. (Why so long? Because I'm going camping tomorrow night, and I'll be without Internet access of any kind until Monday night, although I'll be around for most of the day on the 14th to respond to comments.) If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback. Just remember the trackback policy.
For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1226
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/8/13/1226.aspx
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "Confiscate ALL Korans FirsT DudeS"
No “offensive” Jewish yarmulkes or hanging tzizit there.
Only trendy face coverings and scarfs…the latest in Hollywood in case ya haven’t heard:
...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (14 Aug 08)"
Letters to Putin from Bush, McCain and Obamatard addresssing the Russo-Georgian conflict. I got a good chuckle from them. McCain’s is the best.
A CZAR IS BORN: BAD VLAD WINS WAR, DUPES WEST & PROVES HE’S GENIUS - Personally I admir...
Stageleft:. Life on the left side trackbacked with "How Far Behind Is The –"
– National Bureau of Vigilance Against Naughty Thoughts.
...
Adam's Blog trackbacked with "McCain Flirts With the Possibility of Pro-Choice Veep"
Podcast Show Notes
McCain flirts with the possibility of a pro-choice Vice-Presidential Candidate taking pro-life voters for granted and backtracking on a prior statement.
A theological counterpart of Jeremiah Wright will serve as CEO of the De...
Right Truth trackbacked with "Pounding Putin - America's Survival Guide to Cold War Redux"
POUNDING PUTIN
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (15 Aug 08)"
New Rap Song Advocates Killing Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin - Okay… I understand O’Reilly, but how could you want to harm a face like this? I wonder how many “responsible” parents will buy this CD for their kids...
third world county trackbacked with "The Obamassiah: The “Great Negotiator”? (MHWA)"
The Obamassiah’s just the kind of doof I used to like playing poker with
...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "Buffoon Party “Hand Sign” Sighting"
Its catching on folks. Caption this.
With a slight variation, but similar to the original Buffoon Party hand sign. Obama gang sign hand sign be damned.
Austria’s Stefanie Schwaiger, right signals to her teammate and sister, Doris Schwaiger,...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (16 Aug 08)"
Since the Prophet Obamallah will not debate McCain in an open Townhall (no tele-prompters), he agreed to a round of soft questions with some fruitcake Jesus type. It should be the biggest act of futility since those guys stuffed opossum guts in a hal...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (16 Aug 08)"
Since the Prophet Obamallah will not debate McCain in an open Townhall (no tele-prompters), he agreed to a round of soft questions with some fruitcake Jesus type. It should be the biggest act of futility since those guys stuffed opossum guts in a hal...
The World According To Carl trackbacked with "A Tribute To Tojo Yamamoto"
As a kid, I was a wrestling fan (still am a fan) and basically grew up watching Memphis wrestling almost every week while we lived in the Mississippi Delta. In the Mid-70’s we moved to south Mississippi so the only times I got to see Memphis wrestling ...
The World According To Carl trackbacked with "Godly Wisdom — August 16, 2008"
Beware Of False Teaching. It Is Like A Landmine.
...
The World According To Carl trackbacked with "One Of The Reasons Why I Don’t Vote Democrat In National Elections"
Quite a clever ad and mostly correct. I will have to disagree on Zucker’s omission of the fact that Republicans nowadays are just as guilty of overspending in Congress. Coincidentally, according to various polls, the number of U.S. citizens disatisfied...
The World According To Carl trackbacked with "Tracking Tropical Storm Fay"
Tropical Storm Fay is headed for Cuba right now and this is the latest storm tracker. Too early to tell if it will come close to us in Tallahassee but it’s very early. Various models currently having it going as far west as Mobile, Alabama and as far e...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "Saddleback Snooze Attack"
Not that anyone cares, but my two cents.
First, I still don’t like the fact that Obama won’t face McCain man to man, but this forum did spare us Chris Matthews or some other deranged NBCABCCBSCNN puppet slinging gotcha mud pies instead o...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (17 Aug 08)"
Seven worrisome signs for Obama.
Sunday Funnies
Gay-group founder slapped over John McCain
South Florida Muslims Promote Islamization Under Guise Of “Civic Engagement”
Saggy-pants ban backers gain ally
Obama opposses slavery reperations - ...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Excessive word count..."
doesn't always change the meaning. ...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Excessive word count..."
doesn't always change the meaning. ...
Blog @ MoreWhat.com trackbacked with "Bihar, India to Promote Rat Cuisine"
By Steve Herman
New Delhi
Herman report - Download (MP3)
Herman report - Listen (MP3)
Most cooks do their best to keep rats out of the kitchen, but in Bihar, one of India’s poorest states, officials are doing just the opposite. The welfa...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Some contests are not so cool to win"
It appears that the UK Observer had a competition for most vapid and uninformed and then ran an article spotlighting the winners in their review section today.
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "An American Carol: HollywooD TakeS on the Left"
These affluent, Limo koolaid drinkin Lefties, because of their priviledged circumstances, can’t see the world through the same lenses as us plebians.
They display disdain and complete intolerance for conservatives, even their fellow actors.
...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Barack Obama needs to talk to Indigo Montoya"
The justice seeking, sword wielding Spaniard of The Princess Bride had more to say than, "My name is Indigo Montoya,you killed my father, now prepare to die." ...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (18 Aug 08)"
If Musharraf Goes: Assessments and Opportunities - I hear he’s going into exile in Saudi Arabia. UBL is probably kicking his donkey into a trot trying to get near the nukes.
Israeli cabinet agrees to free some 200 Palestinian prisoners - Got u...
Mark My Words trackbacked with "Obama campaign admits he lied about infanticide"
After much criticism, we now have this from the Obama campaign. ...
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "Michael Phelps: Inspiration? You BeT"
Whenever one of my clients asked me which one was Michael Phelps…I looked up at the huge screen in the lobby and simply said: “Oh, the one in the lead.”
...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (19 Aug 08)"
Obama plans vice-presidential announcement - His first choices, pictured below, could not be reached.
This is rich folks. The carbon trading scheme isn’t working out for the eco-commies in New Zealand and Greenpeace is filling its diaper ab...
Blog @ MoreWhat.com trackbacked with "…Officially a Christian Nation"
Though the internet presence from which the article below hails and the excerpt provided here clearly indicate a liberal slant on things, Joan Walsh did a reasonable job overall with separating her personal opinion from any reporting. But the fact ...
Blog @ MoreWhat.com trackbacked with "Romney Promotes McCain: ‘Judgment Comes from Experience’"
One news event that gives this blog the opportunity to present another post on the first choice for President, Mitt Romney. Along with another who is suggested to be on the short list for his party’s VP nomination, Tom Daschle and Mitt Romney ...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "News & Opinion Roundup (20 Aug 08)"
Poll shows McCain in 5-point lead over Obama
McCain still opposes disaster fund, suggests regional alternative - And he should. Why would a person in Minnesota pay a tax to bail out someone in Florida who gets hit by a hurricane? LESS government f...
walls of the city trackbacked with "100% pure grade a bullshit"
You know, it is reading nonsense like this that really make me start to question what kind of place our country has turned into. If this Marine, Sgt. Jose Nazario, committed a crime, he should and would be reactivated, sent...
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "James Hoyt: Hero Beyond MeasurE"
“They said a wife of one of the SS officers — they called her the B*tch of Buchenwald — saw a tattoo she liked on the arm of a prisoner, and had the skin made into a lampshade. I saw that.”
...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
DragonLady responded with:
 | Perri, I learn more about civics from you than I did in high school, and I think I had a good civics teacher. Of course, I didn't get the full course, but that's another matter.
I also registered to vote shortly after turning 18. I was aggravated that Arkansas changed the governor's term length from 2 to 4 years when I was 16, so I had to wait until I was 20 to vote against Gov Clinton (and it was a vote against Clinton, not for Sheffield Nelson). I registered as a Democrat because all the local (city & county) officials were Democrats, and you didn't get a vote otherwise. I even was on the Democrat's payroll as a poll worker in the primaries, and the county's during general elections. But that said, I wasn't raised to vote for party affiliation. My parents voted for the candidate that best fit with their values and beliefs. Being the rebellious teen that I was, that wasn't enough for me, though I couldn't seem to get behind any Dems other than the local officials. I did, however, have a really good teacher. She taught business classes, and was FBLA sponser, which I was involved in. I was talking with her once and asked her if she was a Democrat or Republican. She said, "Neither. I vote for individual candidates." That reinforced my parents teaching, and so that is how I've always voted.
Now back to your civics lesson, it has been irritating me how the media portrays the president as the ruler of this country. That's why I am not going to have any problem not voting for McCain or Obama. I think it was Reagan who said to the effect that if you agree with 80% of a candidate's platform, you can vote for them. Well, McCain, though his past actions, doesn't fit that bill for me. Obama doesn't even come close. So, I will vote 3rd party, and having been reminded by you of the importance of our House of Representatives, I will certainly make sure I do plenty of research into those candidates before I cast my vote. You certainly have my thanks. :-) |
Layla responded with:
 | To be honest Perri I am a bit overwhelmed and even intimidated by your grasp of knowledge and civics. But in a good way. :)
I was not allowed to vote until I turned 21. That was the law back then. I remember protesting that it was unfair to ask minors to fight and defend our nation, but not allow them to vote until they were 21. That then was the dichotomy.
Of course things have changed since then, thank goodness.
I have always voted. I have yet to miss an election. In fact I worked as an election officer in my precinct in the 2004 presidential election. That I will never do again, ad least not in an all democratic region. That was a nightmare.
But Bush won so I got my sweet revenge in the end and was vindicated. Sometimes it is nice to have the last laugh or the last hurrah!
Seriously, I will vote grudgingly this year. I will vote for the republican I loathe, McCain.
For me this is pathetic and sad, but it is a fact of life. The alternative OBAMA yo mama is from the pit of HELL! |
Angel responded with:
 | There is no time for apathy my friend but its difficult not to throw in the towel these days! |
Perri Nelson responded with: Throwing in the towel?
 | It's getting hard not to throw the towel in I'll admit, especially with John McCain hinting at pro-abort Tom Ridge as a possible running mate.
Even though I find less than 50% of McCain's politics agreeable, I'm afraid that not voting for him will result in a win for Obama. At least McCain's got the potential of being a decent Commander in Chief, while Obama's more likely to be the appeaser in chief.
John McCain's left leaning attitude is starting to really wear thin though, and I'm really afraid I'm going to end up with a permanent bruise if not a broken nose when I vote. |
David responded with:
 | I have become ever more reluctant to encourage anyone to vote. Reasoning? Those who do not have a decent grounding in how our various governments are supposed to work, do not have even a basic grasp of the issues, do not know where the various candidates stand (or do not care as long as their narrow self-interest is tickled) should not vote at all!
Those who have done their homework will probably vote anyway, but those who have not should, IMO, be actively discouraged from disrespecting the ballot with their vote.
Heck, I'd go so far as to suggest we need to have a qualifying civics exam in order to vote (or as one wag suggested along about 2004, give the exam, let everyone vote, but shred the votes of those who do not pass a brief, standardized, civics exam). Sure, something like a standardized civics exam would "discriminate" against illiterates. Boo-hoo. It'd be a good thing, IMO.
One of my most vivid memories is of my Wonder Woman and I going to vote in 1980. As we were approaching the ballot place (long line moving slowly), a little old black lady in the line ahead of us turned to us and asked, "Who am I supposed to vote for?"
Yep. lil old black lady asked us two whitebread folks who she was supposed to vote for. Well, at least she was smarter than millions of other folks who went to the polls that day and simply voted blindly (and I have no doubt "millions" is true for any given November election *sigh*).
Our elections have become Jose Ortega y Gasett's "Revolt of the Masses" (recommended reading) writ large--nearly as large as "voting" for American Idol or the steady degradation of American culture via "voting" at the cash register for crap "art" or high Nielson ratings for TV sludge. |
Perri Nelson responded with: Civics Exam
 | That's actually a good idea. There's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that prohibits it either. The States are still free to choose the qualifications of electors for the most numerous branch of their legislatures. Perhaps a civics exam would be a good thing But, in most States it would never fly. We'd have the ACLU filing lawsuits as soon as the ink was dry. We'd have the labor unions, the teacher's unions and the Democratic party crying foul. Not only that, but just about every incumbent politician would object to it. After all, it seems that the left and the incumbents thrive on ignorant voters who don't have the remotest understanding of civics. Thanks for the link to the proposed exam. It's really pretty easy. I think that the same sort of exam should work for State and local elections too. Just imagine, if every voter knew who was in office, for how long, and what they had voted for or against. How many incumbents would remain in office more than a single term? But then again, maybe it's just a pipe dream. After all, how many people can be bothered to actually pay attention to the news (even the populist pap that passes for news these days) long enough to think about the issues? |
David responded with:
| "After all, how many people can be bothered to actually pay attention to the news (even the populist pap that passes for news these days) long enough to think about the issues?"
Urm, less than 1% of those who actually end up voting? |