Interesting questions regarding voting...

[Heather in Neverland]

So in preparation for election day, our high school kids have been studying American politics (we have students from 28 different countries), researching candidates, debating them, predicting outcomes for the various races, etc. Today, they all gathered to watch CNN as the polls closed to record the results and discuss the outcome of the election on both America and other countries.

 

I sat in on their discussion and two questions came up that I thought were pretty thought-provoking:

 

1. There were lots of TV commercials and FB posts, etc. flying around about "get out and vote". Their question was, with all the pressure to get out and vote, shouldn't we consider America's freedom to vote also a freedom to NOT vote? Should we really vilify people for not voting if America is truly a free country?

 

2. If a large number of people who DO vote are woefully uneducated when it comes to politics, the candidates, the issues, etc., is democracy really the best way to handle choosing leaders for a country?

 

I thought they were pretty interesting questions for a group of mostly non-American students. What says the hive?

[DarcyB]

#1. Yes, it is a choice to vote, but the thing is, with all the encouragement from each other TO go vote..we're not being FORCED to vote by gun or law, nor are we being kept from voting by gun or law.

 

#2. Even uneducated, we still have the right...and if it's taken in the name of 'we know better than you', it's a judgement call for a dictatorship. We the people put people into office, and we the people can take them back out again. (which is something that happened yesterday - I'm not chosing sides, but it is basically what happened).

 

They had great questions, though!

[TravelingChris]

Democracy is the best way, in my opinion, but I do not encourage uninterested to vote. We saw what happened in South Carolina where a man with limited intelligence and a felony charge got nominated because people thought he was a different man, an R + B singer. That is just stupid. Since I am a transient (because of the military), I often don't know that much about a candidate. I make it my business to research before voting. If I can't find out anything about the candidates, we skip that race. I am not going to unknowingly vote in someone who is charged with murder or up on corruption charges or a myriad of other things (all true scenarios in House races in either 2008 or 2010).

[Danestress]

Should we really vilify people for not voting if America is truly a free country?

 

 

 

Sure. Just because people have a right to choose between two options (vote or not vote) does not mean that other people don't have a right to say that one of those options is, in their opinion, the far better option.

 

Criticizing a choice in a society does not necessarily make people less free to make that choice. You can vote or not vote. I can say that everyone should vote. My saying you should vote does not make you less free to not vote.

 

On the second issue, assuming that there is a "right" and a "wrong" outcome in an election and that this could be accurately and objectively determined, democracy is no guarantee that you will always get the right outcome. There might be other forms of government that work as well or better in other places. We have a long tradition of democratic ideals and we are willing to live with it's possible shortcomings, because we think the alternatives are likely worse.

[Jenny in Atl]

There are many who would love to limit who is able to vote... Given that, I find it sad that so few who are eligible do. It's kind of like who ends up on the jury.

:tongue_smilie:

[lionfamily1999]

1. It's a responsibility, imo ;)

 

2. Well, if you think that the uneducated do not deserve a voice, then I guess you'd be happier if only white land owning men voted too. After all, they know what's best for all of us. Or, you could see that the under-uneducated are the majority of the country, and since what we vote on has bearing on our every day lives, you could see that they have as much a responsibility to vote (in order to ensure that THEY are taken care of and THEIR rights are respected) as does a professional with a few degrees. Imo, if only well-educated people voted you would soon find the burden on the uneducated reaches well beyond what they can actually carry.

[Alyce]

1) yes over the past several years there has been a big push by various forces to pressure people to get out and vote. I don't like the methods being done to do that but in the long run we all have a choice: We can vote or we can choose not to vote. Unfortunately people are being vilified because they didn't vote and that's not right. People have taken the right to vote in the wrong direction. In their eyes you have the right to vote if you vote the right way and if you don't vote that means you are against us instead of just being accepted for who he is irregardless of the fact that he didn't vote. That isn't losing our freedom that is they way people start dictatorships. It the people that choose not to vote that we must protect the most. This is a free country and when people can't live freely then we must protect those person's rights to be free.

 

2)I see the way socialism, communism and dictatorships work. Those are not the kinds of governments I would want to live under. I'm proud that we are a democratic nation. Yes people are uneducated but there is a way to change that. Help educated them. Teach them Civics in School. Not the current stuff but spend more time on the early history of our nation, what is in the Constitution, what it was like while it was being written. Learn as much as you can about those who wrote and signed the constitution. Make documentaries on the party systems, what there overall beliefs and views are. Put info on u-tube, FB,twitter. Make those wanting to be elected publish information on their stand on different issues, their backgrounds and if they are incumbents what they have done for the country &/or their communities. Actually I think that if every person in this country had to learn and pass the current test to become a citizen of the US even those of us who consider our selves educated might find we're not as educated as we thought. Another thing to consider!

[Catherine]

The fear of "mob rule" comes through loud and clear in the letters and words of the men who attending the Philadelphia constitutional convention, and in the Federalist papers. It's part of the reason we have the electoral college.

[SailorMom]

Ok - this is going to be very controversial, and I know it sounds bad - but I am a student of history and those who know much about the end of Athen's Golden Age and the end of the Roman Republic might not think I'm so horrid.....

 

It is every citizens' right and responsibility to vote, and I don't think (at this point) we can change that anyway. However - we are at a point in our history where a large number of voters do not educate themselves as to the policies, ammendments, and candidates they are voting for (or against). Civics classes in public schools are woefully lacking, news is inflamatory and biased, and most people know more about Dancing with the Stars than they do about Congress.

 

Yes - it is a right, but it is also a responsibility that far to many citizens no longer take seriously enough.

 

IMHO, if a person does not have time to educate themselves on the matters they are voting on, they should be honest with themselves and abstain from voting in that election. I had to do this myself when my two sons were 2 and 3 years old - and I feel it was more responsible of me to not vote than to vote ignorantly.

 

If it were at all possible, I believe there should be some sort of civics test to obtain a voting card - similar to the test given to immigrants to become citizens. Or perhaps have it be a one time test taken at 18 during/after high school. There may be those who are at a level of disadvantage here - but a simple civics test would be no more difficult than a test for a driver's license and people with that sort of disadvantage pass those all the time.

[Laurie4b]

I think freedom to vote is also freedom not to vote, whether as a protest choice, or because someone doesn't really care. And if some people don't really care enough to register and research and show up at the polls, I would prefer those people don't vote because their vote will not be an informed choice. I"m all for teaching young people that their vote matters and that it is their responsibility to vote. I'm all for encouraging people who may otherwise feel like they have no voice to find their voice and vote. I do not think that "we need to get more people voting" is a good goal, in and of itself. We need to get more people to think, care, and act. That will include voting. But higher numbers of actual voters? Could be good or bad. Shouldn't be a goal in itself.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Laurie4b

[Laurie4b]

1. It's a responsibility, imo ;)

 

2. Well, if you think that the uneducated do not deserve a voice, then I guess you'd be happier if only white land owning men voted too. After all, they know what's best for all of us. Or, you could see that the under-uneducated are the majority of the country, and since what we vote on has bearing on our every day lives, you could see that they have as much a responsibility to vote (in order to ensure that THEY are taken care of and THEIR rights are respected) as does a professional with a few degrees. Imo, if only well-educated people voted you would soon find the burden on the uneducated reaches well beyond what they can actually carry.

 

It sounded to me like the kids were saying uneducated on the issues, candidates, etc. I don't know that that is correlated with general education which you seem to be saying.

 

Personally, I think it is harmful when people vote who don't know what they are voting for, however educated they may be. That includes legislators who don't read bills!

[Laurie4b]

Ok - this is going to be very controversial, and I know it sounds bad - but I am a student of history and those who know much about the end of Athen's Golden Age and the end of the Roman Republic might not think I'm so horrid.....

 

It is every citizens' right and responsibility to vote, and I don't think (at this point) we can change that anyway. However - we are at a point in our history where a large number of voters do not educate themselves as to the policies, ammendments, and candidates they are voting for (or against). Civics classes in public schools are woefully lacking, news is inflamatory and biased, and most people know more about Dancing with the Stars than they do about Congress.

 

Yes - it is a right, but it is also a responsibility that far to many citizens no longer take seriously enough.

 

IMHO, if a person does not have time to educate themselves on the matters they are voting on, they should be honest with themselves and abstain from voting in that election. I had to do this myself when my two sons were 2 and 3 years old - and I feel it was more responsible of me to not vote than to vote ignorantly.

 

If it were at all possible, I believe there should be some sort of civics test to obtain a voting card - similar to the test given to immigrants to become citizens. Or perhaps have it be a one time test taken at 18 during/after high school. There may be those who are at a level of disadvantage here - but a simple civics test would be no more difficult than a test for a driver's license and people with that sort of disadvantage pass those all the time.

 

I agree with all but the last paragraph. I prefer to see peer pressure to be a self-educated voter. We can affect what is taught in civics courses in our schools. We can be a voice for informed voting in our social circles. We can be role models for our children.

 

I would never support the requirement of a test before voting.

[Stacy in NJ]

American voters are not now more or less informed (or educated) then they've ever been, and yet we've managed 230 years of continuous democracy through war, depression, and civil disobediance.

 

People who don't vote are not villified in the US. We encourage civic responsibility. Some folks take those responsibilites seriously - some don't. Again, nothing new in that statement either. Democracy makes us responsible (collectively) for the actions or inactions of our government. It is self-accountability.

 

Democracy has always been and will always be imperfect. As Winston Churchill said (paraphrasing): Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.:001_smile:

[KnitWit]

The thing that chaps my hide is the people I know who stick their nose in the air and state they refuse to vote...but then expect me to listen to their griping all. the. time.

 

Yep. Voting is a free privilege...but if you choose to NOT vote, then SHUT UP!

[katemary63]

1. There were lots of TV commercials and FB posts, etc. flying around about "get out and vote". Their question was, with all the pressure to get out and vote, shouldn't we consider America's freedom to vote also a freedom to NOT vote? Should we really vilify people for not voting if America is truly a free country?

 

Freedom and right vs. wrong are not the same. You can vote or not, but it's still wrong not to do so. If a divorced parent does not visit or communicate with thier own children, they are free to make that choice. But they are still entirely wrong for it. Parenting one's own child is a responsibility that when abdicated puts one in the wrong. Voting is the same. It is simply wrong not to vote.

 

edited to add: I agree that those who do vote should also choose to educate themselves on who and what they are voting for. Blind, uneducated voting is still an abdication of the responsibility of being a citizen in this democracy.

 

2. If a large number of people who DO vote are woefully uneducated when it comes to politics, the candidates, the issues, etc., is democracy really the best way to handle choosing leaders for a country?

 

Ah...one of the most petrifying thoughts ever presented that actually SEEMS to make sense at first. You would have to look at the consequences of any other method - loss of FREEDOM being the most obvious but not only one. Democracy is the ONLY acceptable way to handle choosing leaders for a country, however flawed it may be. How would you like someone telling YOU you are not educated enough to vote? Where will the bar be set? How high? Who's to say? Scary, scary!

Edited November 3, 2010 by katemary63

[Jenny in Atl]

The fear of "mob rule" comes through loud and clear in the letters and words of the men who attending the Philadelphia constitutional convention, and in the Federalist papers. It's part of the reason we have the electoral college.

 

What is most interesting, to me, is which "mob" people fear. Those who I'm fearful of, are most likely the ones many here think are great. There lies the never ending problem with a democracy/representative republic.

[fhjmom]

I think freedom to vote is also freedom not to vote, whether as a protest choice, or because someone doesn't really care. And if some people don't really care enough to register and research and show up at the polls, I would prefer those people don't vote because their vote will not be an informed choice. I"m all for teaching young people that their vote matters and that it is their responsibility to vote. I'm all for encouraging people who may otherwise feel like they have no voice to find their voice and vote. I do not think that "we need to get more people voting" is a good goal, in and of itself. We need to get more people to think, care, and act. That will include voting. But higher numbers of actual voters? Could be good or bad. Shouldn't be a goal in itself.

:iagree:

It sounded to me like the kids were saying uneducated on the issues, candidates, etc. I don't know that that is correlated with general education which you seem to be saying.

 

Personally, I think it is harmful when people vote who don't know what they are voting for, however educated they may be. That includes legislators who don't read bills!

:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I agree with all but the last paragraph. I prefer to see peer pressure to be a self-educated voter. We can affect what is taught in civics courses in our schools. We can be a voice for informed voting in our social circles. We can be role models for our children.

 

I would never support the requirement of a test before voting.

 

:iagree: Those tactics have been used in the past to try and disenfranchise people:(

[stripe]

1. There were lots of TV commercials and FB posts, etc. flying around about "get out and vote". Their question was, with all the pressure to get out and vote, shouldn't we consider America's freedom to vote also a freedom to NOT vote? Should we really vilify people for not voting if America is truly a free country?

I don't think this is vilifying people. Compare the rate of participation of the American electorate to other countries. We're lucky if we get to 42% voting in a midterm election. So "get out the vote" campaigns are an effort to overcome inertia.

 

2. If a large number of people who DO vote are woefully uneducated when it comes to politics, the candidates, the issues, etc., is democracy really the best way to handle choosing leaders for a country?

That's why Plato didn't like democracy. And that was before campaign contributions and advertising.

[Heather in Neverland]

It sounded to me like the kids were saying uneducated on the issues, candidates, etc. I don't know that that is correlated with general education which you seem to be saying.

 

 

 

Yes this is what they meant. I'm sorry...I should have been more clear. It's not that they thought you should have a college degree or a certain IQ to vote...just that you should be "educated" about the candidates, issues, bills, etc. before you vote on them. They especially were shocked by the option of voting a straight party ticket. They couldn't believe that we would walk into the voting booth and just vote "democrat" or "republican" for EVERYTHING instead of voting for each individual candidate separately. It was interesting to see it through the eyes of non-Americans.

[TN Mama]

1. It's a responsibility, imo ;)

 

2. Well, if you think that the uneducated do not deserve a voice, then I guess you'd be happier if only white land owning men voted too. After all, they know what's best for all of us. Or, you could see that the under-uneducated are the majority of the country, and since what we vote on has bearing on our every day lives, you could see that they have as much a responsibility to vote (in order to ensure that THEY are taken care of and THEIR rights are respected) as does a professional with a few degrees. Imo, if only well-educated people voted you would soon find the burden on the uneducated reaches well beyond what they can actually carry.

 

I agree with your #1. But not so much with your #2. I don't think uneducated in the op means school educated, but knowing about the candidates/issues. A friend told me that when she went to the polls yesterday there was a person there who thought this was a presidential election. IMO, if you don't know anything about the candidates and what they stand for, or the issues and what they mean - please do us all a favor and stay home.

[Laura Corin]

Number 1: Yes

 

Number 2: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill

 

Laura

[Laurie4b]

Number 2: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill

 

Laura

 

:001_smile:

[Heather in Neverland]

I agree with your #1. But not so much with your #2. I don't think uneducated in the op means school educated, but knowing about the candidates/issues. A friend told me that when she went to the polls yesterday there was a person there who thought this was a presidential election. IMO, if you don't know anything about the candidates and what they stand for, or the issues and what they mean - please do us all a favor and stay home.

 

I struggle with this too. It reminds me of TV news reports I saw during the 2008 election and reporters were asking inner-city Detroit residents who they were voting for and why and several of them ACTUALLY said "I'm voting for Obama cuz he gonna pay my car note!" I was like WHAT?????? And they also said it was the first time they had ever voted. THAT is the kind of thing that scares me when it comes to voting. I actually felt sorry for Obama (but just for a second...lol) because I imagined him sitting watching that news report going "I never said I was going to pay anyone's car loan! What are these people talking about?" :lol:

[Mejane]

I agree it's a responsibility, but I also don't want people going into the polls and playing eeny-meeny-miney-moe. So to answer your questions: yes and no. ;)

[lionfamily1999]

It sounded to me like the kids were saying uneducated on the issues, candidates, etc. I don't know that that is correlated with general education which you seem to be saying.

 

Personally, I think it is harmful when people vote who don't know what they are voting for, however educated they may be. That includes legislators who don't read bills!

Okay, I must have misunderstood.

 

I still think that even the woefully ignorant have the right and responsibility to vote, though.

I agree with your #1. But not so much with your #2. I don't think uneducated in the op means school educated, but knowing about the candidates/issues. A friend told me that when she went to the polls yesterday there was a person there who thought this was a presidential election. IMO, if you don't know anything about the candidates and what they stand for, or the issues and what they mean - please do us all a favor and stay home.

I have to wonder, though, if that's the right response. I mean, in the end, you're removing someone's right to vote based upon parameters that are chosen by someone else, iykwIm. Why shouldn't uninformed voters vote? The obvious answer is, they don't know what they are voting for, but how many INFORMED voters realize what they're voting for? What I mean is, there are those that believe that tea partiers are either ignorant of what they're supporting or else evil :p Do we say, then, that they should not be allowed to vote? Who chooses what is important to know? I know people that base their votes strictly off of the pro-life issue. Even today, with that issue being "settled" in most people's minds, there are people that vote just to give support to the prolife ideals. Are they uninformed, or just not informed in a way that most people would agree with? What about people that watch MSNBC all day, for all their news? Would we call them uninformed, just because they watch biased news for their information? What about greenies? They can vote strictly based on the environmental impact of a candidate, or an issue. Are they informed (they know their stuff where Green is concerned)?

 

That's the problem I see. Even the uninformed voters (however you want to define that) are coming from a group of people that has a right to a voice, no matter how ignorant we may judge that voice to be.

I struggle with this too. It reminds me of TV news reports I saw during the 2008 election and reporters were asking inner-city Detroit residents who they were voting for and why and several of them ACTUALLY said "I'm voting for Obama cuz he gonna pay my car note!" I was like WHAT?????? And they also said it was the first time they had ever voted. THAT is the kind of thing that scares me when it comes to voting. I actually felt sorry for Obama (but just for a second...lol) because I imagined him sitting watching that news report going "I never said I was going to pay anyone's car loan! What are these people talking about?" :lol:

See above ;)

[TN Mama]

Okay, I must have misunderstood.

 

I still think that even the woefully ignorant have the right and responsibility to vote, though.

 

I have to wonder, though, if that's the right response. I mean, in the end, you're removing someone's right to vote based upon parameters that are chosen by someone else, iykwIm. Why shouldn't uninformed voters vote? The obvious answer is, they don't know what they are voting for, but how many INFORMED voters realize what they're voting for? What I mean is, there are those that believe that tea partiers are either ignorant of what they're supporting or else evil :p Do we say, then, that they should not be allowed to vote? Who chooses what is important to know? I know people that base their votes strictly off of the pro-life issue. Even today, with that issue being "settled" in most people's minds, there are people that vote just to give support to the prolife ideals. Are they uninformed, or just not informed in a way that most people would agree with? What about people that watch MSNBC all day, for all their news? Would we call them uninformed, just because they watch biased news for their information? What about greenies? They can vote strictly based on the environmental impact of a candidate, or an issue. Are they informed (they know their stuff where Green is concerned)?

 

That's the problem I see. Even the uninformed voters (however you want to define that) are coming from a group of people that has a right to a voice, no matter how ignorant we may judge that voice to be.

 

See above ;)

 

I don't have to agree with the choice an informed person makes. We're both educated on the issues/candidates, but have differing opinions. I can encourage everyone to vote, who understands what/who they're voting for, regardless of political affiliation.

I think I disagree with what you're calling uninformed and would instead call it "different that what I believe".

[lionfamily1999]

I don't have to agree with the choice an informed person makes. We're both educated on the issues/candidates, but have differing opinions. I can encourage everyone to vote, who understands what/who they're voting for, regardless of political affiliation.

I think I disagree with what you're calling uninformed and would instead call it "different that what I believe".

What I'm saying is that even those that thought Obama was going to pay off their cars sought information in some way (or else they would not have had that ironious assumption). We would say they were uninformed, because we know that they had no idea what they were talking about, but they would have disagreed.

 

Anyone with the forethought to say, I don't know and don't feel like I should vote has the right not to vote. The people that we might consider uninformed (even though we come from different pov) probably feel themselves to be informed. Nearly everyone has a reason behind their vote, even if it party affiliation. Who's to judge whether or not their reasons are good enough (or informed)?

[angela in ohio]

Encouraging people to vote does not equal vilifying those who don't. That's a big leap. (Maybe a high school course in logic and rhetoric is in order? :D)

[TN Mama]

What I'm saying is that even those that thought Obama was going to pay off their cars sought information in some way (or else they would not have had that ironious assumption). We would say they were uninformed, because we know that they had no idea what they were talking about, but they would have disagreed.

 

Anyone with the forethought to say, I don't know and don't feel like I should vote has the right not to vote. The people that we might consider uninformed (even though we come from different pov) probably feel themselves to be informed. Nearly everyone has a reason behind their vote, even if it party affiliation. Who's to judge whether or not their reasons are good enough (or informed)?

 

Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you're saying in the bolded part. (Though I still would call those uninformed, because... well, they were.)

 

ETA: Just want to clarify what I wrote in parentheses - I am basing that strictly on the aforementioned car loan payment and on nothing else. There were plenty of people who voted for Obama who were genuinely informed.

Edited November 3, 2010 by TN Mama

[TravelingChris]

I am not saying we should have a test. I am simply thinking that encouraging people who have no idea what is going on is not a noble thing to do. Some campaign worker most likely told that person Obama will pay your car payment. That is disgraceful. If there is someone who is thinking that we were voting for President or that someone long dead is running, no, we should not encourage them to vote.

[lionfamily1999]

Do we discourage it though?

 

ETA, I agree, I'd say they were uninformed. I just don't think they would agree with us.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

So in preparation for election day, our high school kids have been studying American politics (we have students from 28 different countries), researching candidates, debating them, predicting outcomes for the various races, etc. Today, they all gathered to watch CNN as the polls closed to record the results and discuss the outcome of the election on both America and other countries.

 

I sat in on their discussion and two questions came up that I thought were pretty thought-provoking:

 

1. There were lots of TV commercials and FB posts, etc. flying around about "get out and vote". Their question was, with all the pressure to get out and vote, shouldn't we consider America's freedom to vote also a freedom to NOT vote? Should we really vilify people for not voting if America is truly a free country?

 

2. If a large number of people who DO vote are woefully uneducated when it comes to politics, the candidates, the issues, etc., is democracy really the best way to handle choosing leaders for a country?

 

I thought they were pretty interesting questions for a group of mostly non-American students. What says the hive?

 

Those are good questions.

 

Yes, we have a freedom not to vote. There are some religions who chose, as a matter of faith, to not participate in voting. Also as a member of a military family that has been stationed away from "home" for almost 10 years, I find that there are often local races where I can't make an informed choice. Just this year, I chose not to vote in our primary because I didn't feel like I had enough of a base of information to make a wise decision. DH votes absentee for a different state that has long and complicated ballots. He often leaves some of the smaller races unmarked because he doesn't know enough about the candidates.

 

The ability to pick and choose is actually something that I like about our system. It can be far more nuanced than just picking a party and then getting the representation that the party picked based on the number of votes it received.

 

Uninformed voters are a problem, but they aren't a new problem. The term mobocracy was coined in the 1700's and used (I think) by Alexander Hamilton to express his skepticism about the effects of mass democracy. For that matter, the similar term ochlocracy was used at least a hundred years earlier and comes from a term used by an ancient Greek writer. But I think the best prescriptive is a free press and free speech that can allow voters to be informed. Not to leave voting and decision making only to a set of self-appointed elite. Too often, those elite make decisions that they can avoid the consequences of and too often their decision making is adversely influenced by conceit and a desire to retain power. A wider electorate, IMHO, does force compromise.

 

I'm with Winston Churchill, who said that, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Encouraging people to vote does not equal vilifying those who don't. That's a big leap. (Maybe a high school course in logic and rhetoric is in order? :D)

 

I have seen a couple FB posts on the order of "if you choose not to vote, make sure you sit down and shut up because you're chosing to act like a slave." However, these are few and far between and don't at all represent the tenor of most of the get out the vote campaigns.

 

I think what Heather's students should have pointed out is that most of the get out the vote campaigns are celebratory in nature. You've got the vote, so use it. Rock the vote from MTV, in particular is targeting younger voters, who are often young enough that they haven't developed a habit of voting. The hope is that they will recognize their franchise as something that matters and that is therefore worth caring about. Worth caring enough to find out something about the issues and candidates beyond the bumper sticker quality sloganeering.

 

Two other thoughts. I worked a poll as a campaign volunteer when my MIL was running for re-election in a local race. It was frightening how many people came to vote who didn't know what races were on the ballot. More frightening was the number who came out, surprised at the ballot initiatives that they knew nothing about - but had voted on anyway. I became much more cynical about voters after that. I would say that uninformed voting is as potentially dangerous as driving after drinking. Not to say that people who hold different opinions of an election are uninformed, but there are voters who really do not have an idea what they are voting on. That does bother me.

 

Secondly, on the issue for voting a straight party ticket versus voting for an individual. I think that Americans will often proclaim that they vote for the person and not for the party. And on one hand that is good. I would hate to continue to support a knave just because he or she was from a particular party (I don't think anyone will have a problem thinking of a knave from the "other" party and with a little work, even one from "your" party). But I think that voters also can't ignore the way that party affiliation impacts national legislation. The majority in each house in Congress determines who appoints the chair positions for committees. Those committees in turn, have incredible influence over what legislation makes it to a full house vote (and what it looks like when it gets there). I don't live in Henry Waxman or Nancy Pelosi's districts, so I can't cast a vote to get them out of office. But I can cast a vote that can put them out of the majority and thus out of their chairmanship or speaker's position. In order to do that, I was willing to vote against a representative that had satisfied me 80%. Unfortunately a vote for him was a vote in favor of the worst policies of his party. His individual votes in Congress ended up being unimportant compared to the way that his party had steered legislation.