I'm not a political animal, at least not the savvy kind that follows the goings-on of City Hall and Capitol Hill. Over the years, though, I've become more aware of the part I play in things. And with that has come a growing awareness of my responsibilities. I wish you could talk about these things without sounding like a sanctimonious prick, but here goes.
Four years ago, I had a conversation with a fellow that went something like this. See if you can find what's wrong:
DUDE: Who're you voting for, Bush or Kerry?Have you spotted it yet? It seems to me that the dude erred by playing a numbers game - he was voting for the candidate he thought would win. The safest bet that was close enough to his own position. And I suspect there's a lot of this going on come election day.
ME: Neither; I'm calling for Nader. His policies seem better than the rest.
DUDE: I'm voting for Kerry. Nader's all right, but he doesn't stand a chance.
ME: What do you mean, he doesn't stand a chance?
DUDE: If Nader was more popular, I'd vote for him. But voting for him now is just going to detract from Kerry, and I really don't want Bush to win. So I'm going for Kerry.
One thing votes don't come with is a rationale. You can say who you're voting for, but not why. That's what polls and pundits are for, I guess. But the tacit assumption of the election game, as far as I could ever tell, is that you vote for whoever you want to win, or at least prefer. Isn't this obvious? And if you prefer a candidate who's lower in the polls, it seems those numbers would go up if you stated your preference. Isn't that obvious? Not voting for your preferred candidate, then, is disingenuous.
That's why, dear readers, I'm saying to both of you now: cast your own damn vote. Everything is being done to manipulate us into believing this or that about the candidates - whoever's playing or watching has a hand in this. Don't let them distract you. Make up your own mind, by hook or by crook, and cast your vote accordingly. If it happens to be Democrat or GOP, so be it; if not, so be it.
"Well, yes, but the two-party system has gotten so bloated, it can't be changed. Better to work with the system than against it." I can totally understand the sentiment; I felt that way once. It's wrong. The only reason it's gotten that way is that we made it happen. And it's not going to change unless we make something else happen.
"But there are no alternatives!" There are - you may have to look harder, but they're out there. The Democrites and Republican'ts will drown them out with their braying simply because they can; those parties have snowballed their clout by various means over the years. But it's not written in stone that they are the only parties. It's not even in the Constitution.
"But my vote doesn't count - come on, it's only one vote." Again, I've felt the same way. But it's wrong. Votes add up; that's the point. If you want A to win, throw in for A; if B, then say B's your vote. Groupthink will not help. The numbers game is played by people who are second-guessing everybody else, and hence wasting their chance. The upshot of this is an electoral system that does nothing except maintain the status quo despite all the complaints. So - to be blunt about it - if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain. And if you don't vote differently when you could, that might be even worse. If you want a government of the people, by the people, for the people, the people have to speak up.
Who is the people? That's you - and you over there, and me. Individuals vote, not groups; that's why the US has 200 million potential voices, not two.
You're an individual. So vote like one.
2 comments:
I actually read it - even if I am far from being an American :-D
Hope, You don't mind. I will not tell my opinion or my opinion upon Your monologue about strategic voting 'cause I have no vote in this anyway!
You read it!?! without being American??? Why, that's un-American!
Comrade, you're perfectly free to speak your mind if you want to; this election may be American, but voting is universal.
And even if we disagree, that doesn't mean dialogue is verboten. That's the point of conversation - to understand and be understood. Persuasion is another matter.
Post a Comment