Thursday, October 21, 2004

Important voting instructions!!

You may have seen the adds for all the Get Out the Vote and the Vote or Loose campaigns, ect. They all want you to vote; to get as many people as possible to perform their civic duty. And they all have an agenda...most target young people - a rather large group - who don't normally vote for some reason, but when they do, tend to be convienient, no? I would have to say that, statistically, at least one would be honest, just wanting to get people to vote. But certainly not all.

Anyways, they all claim to just want you to get out and perform your civic duty and vote. Well, guess what: you don't have the civic duty to vote. In fact, there are times when you should just stay home on the polling day. Why wouldn't you vote, if you are perfectly able and willing? I will explain:

The founding fathers, even more than a monarchy, feared mob rule. They knew that the average bumkin was not smart enough, not informed enough, to make a proper decision on who would be in charge of their country. They would fall to the ebbs and tides of popular opinion, easily swayed to someone else's informed opinion, as they have none of their own. Prone to vasilate in their own opinion, depending on whom they are talking to at the time. Or, even worse, a person would vote right on party lines - not because of any agreement philisophicaly, but just because it is their party, which must have, at one time, appealed to them in some way, but now may be completely different, and the voter will not notice, or care - have to vote for my party. If such a thing happened today, pretty much every election (at least presidential) would go to the Democrats, the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy. Also, there are people that are just too stupid to operate a voting machine properly. Even the incredibly simple butterfly ballot is too hard for some people. Those people should not vote. All these are most definitely NOT what the Founders wanted.

Well, David, you are saying that just because I am a Democrat?
No, not at all. I am saying that if you have not done research into actual positions, actual political history, of each candidate. You should ABSOLUTELY NOT vote entirely based on what the candidates will say they will do. Campaign promises are not promises; they are but possiblilties, mere suggestions to the candidate if elected. The only campaign promises you should even begin to believe are the ones that they have been actively persuing in the past, and havn't accomplished. Unfortunately, we, as Americans (even as a human species it seems; but Americans especially), vote based on what a candidate says, not on what they have done, and thus will most likely do in the future. If this is you, do not vote.

If you have based your vote on the debates, do not vote. Nothing new was said; nothing changed from before (except the polls...); it is just for useful soundbites and seeing who can give a better speech. All I said about campaign promises above doubles, triples, here.

If you are basing your vote just on what you see on the news, or read in the newspapers, do not vote. You are not properly informed. You are only partially informed. You need to look around. Congressional records, or state records, are pretty good. You don't have to hit the books yourself; someone else has done the research, and posted the results on the internet. You just have to look for that. (Sometimes it would just be easier to just look up those records yourself). A good place to look is They...check the facts...of what the candidates say. That is a good way to stay informed. Shoot, if you actually read the e-mailed articles I send you, you are pretty well-informed, but I would still suggest you do some of your own work, too.

This is not just my opinion. Go here and read what this guy says, at least up to the first emoticon. The rest is about a campaign rally. If you want to read the rest, be my guest. If not, as it is quite long, read the begining part.


At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad you are so distrustfull of people you can'y even believe that they might ACTUALLY not have an agenda for getting young people to vote. Most likely you are right but not all people are biased such as yourself. Secondly, the debates are very good in order to form one's opinion for election day. While most of the rhetoric is mindless drivel someone should have been able to come away from the debates with the candidates' opinion on abortion, position on the war and various other important issues that determine who people vote for. It is true that you can look at the candidates records to determine where they actually stand, yet you forget its easy to see what Bush would do because he is already President. We will not know what direction Kerry will go untill he actually takes offuce. We can look at his Senatorial history but we can only see his opinions on measures he had no influence in creating in the first place. Therefore, we must listen to what Kerry sais he will do and assume he will carry through with it.If not, he and the Democrats will suffer the next election. Just looking at the candidates record would give Bush a large advantage because he has had the power to actually put his policies into action, and thus would undermine our democratic system of equal competition. Not thats its equal at all anyways, but that is a topic for another day.

-The Duke of Highland

At 5:03 PM, Blogger David said...

Oh, contrair! Kerry has much more power to make his opinion into action. He is in the Senate. He can propose bills all by himself. The President has to get someone to sponsor the bill for him. The President has the bully pulpit of public opinion to indirectly influence the House and Senate (not so much the Senate, as at least a third of them can out-last the President in office) through the public. But he cannot directly put bills out.
And, Kerry has had twenty years in the Senate. That is plenty of time to have your opinions put forth, and to know what a person will do (remember, MOST of what we will do can be predicted from the past, unless it was a mistake which we hopefully learned from and will not repeat ;)).
Oh, and a candidate has plenty of time before the debate (like, months) to get their views out, and a few weeks after. It is not like the debates will shed any really important new light on anything. Usually they are just stump speeches and opportunities for the candidates to directly trip each other up. THAT is the only useful purpose to the debates: a chance for all to see a candidate directly confronted with an issue, that they can't (or shouldn't) weasel out of, if their opponent is worth their salt (which, unfortunately, neither Bush nor Kerry can seem to do). As I said in the actual article, the debates are not somewhere to form your decision. In the best possible scenario, it could be used as a part of the decision; but of course, in the best-case, you would have done all your research and know for whom you are going to vote for by a month before an election.
And, in the future, use the big comments button. I don't know what is up with the site doing all the doubling up of stuff (well, I think I know why, but I don't know how to fix it without possibly messing things up more).

At 5:12 PM, Blogger David said...

Nevermind about the using the other comment thing.

At 5:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, your ideas are all well in theory. How many Americans do you think ACTUALLY do that kind of research? Probably very few. Most people don't have that kind of time or energy making the debates more important than you might think. Secondly, Kerry may have had some influence on a bill or to but he doesn't quite have the power to say...go to war like Bush does.I kinda think pushing the country to invade another is a LITTLE more powerful than writing a bill or two. Plus, Kerry can't exactly push his will on a divided congress with bush's veto power now can he. If I did not just wake up I would add more insight....

-The Duke of Highland


Post a Comment

<< Home