Evolution of Understanding of Government
I have to admit that I have never been very involved (read: interested) in politics. I know, I know, if I were in some other country that did not allow at least a semblance of democracy (since that's about all we have in the U.S.) I would do anything to have a say. Call me jaded; but at least I'm aware of my condition.
The method by which I vote has gone through three stages, and I think I have finally ended up with something workable:
18 Years Old: The first stage was to go along with whatever my parents told me. I honestly put no thought into voting, registered republican, and voted along with my parents. When your biggest concern is whether your parents will let you stay out 'til 10pm on Saturday night, the next president isn't exactly on the "things I really care about list."
22 Years Old: The second stage was to do some reading, do some thinking, and end up with a totally nihilistic view of my role in voting. My thoughts were: if California will always be a democratic state, it doesn't matter what I vote. If I voted democrat, a democrat would win; if I voted republican, a democrat would win (etc, etc). Due to this 'understanding,' I voted, not really caring or thinking it mattered. Now, there is some truth to this, but it is misguided and it led to my current thought.
26 Years Old: The third stage is to actually care enough to not go with a mob mentality. My mind still can't wrap around the idea that only someone from one of two parties will win. Why the hell is that? Why do people not even consider the other parties? Go ahead, ask someone to name candidates from a party other than the democrats or republicans and they will likely draw a blank (unless it's someone like Ron Paul who would have to be a write-in). What is my solution then? Simply to vote for someone I agree with. Screw the main two candidates, they are both bad choices. Yeah, I know that voting for a third party means that my choice will not win and that my vote will not go towards helping "the lesser of two evils." I'm sick of that phrase. Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? If more people stopped following the crowd and read into the issues and voted on something other than a big D or R, we actually might get some of the much harped on "change" this country so badly needs.
So what's the end result? I used to think voting for anyone other than D or R would result in a thrown away vote. Now I see that by voting for someone other than the main two, those candidates will look at the states they lost, ask why, and see (hopefully) a good-sized chunk of votes going to some underdog. This will (hopefully) cause them to rethink why they were not voted for and make some changes. It will also (hopefully) give some power to third parties and help the hopelessly insignificant candidates to gain some significance and actually make some change.
Anyway, I'm off my soap-box. I hate politics. I really do. But I guess trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it.
3 comments:
"trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it."
yes! my name is aaron humphrey, and i endorse this message.
I am curious about who you decided to vote for, though. When I got my ballot I was surprised to see how many parties had a candidate running for president. I expected it to just be D & R, but there were at least half a dozen parties on the Oregon ballot. Ralph Nader is running again! Who knew?
One of the great things about voting is obviously the secret ballot, but if you don't mind sharing, I'd be really interested in knowing who you found deserving of your support.
Well, I don't mind sharing at all. But you have to keep in mind that my method of voting is still somewhat infantile. The more I think about it, the more I think my vote is more of a protest than an actual endorsement. It's more so me saying, "I DON'T vote for ____" than it is me saying, "I vote for ____."
That being said, I voted for Bob Barr (the libertarian). He's not perfect by any means, but he's against the bail out, he's (now) against the Patriot Act, he's distanced himself from Bush, he wants out of Iraq quickly, etc, etc. He's not THE ideal candidate; but he seems to stand for more that I agree with than McCain or Obama.
i definitely agree that the idea of "lesser of two evils" is just purely wrong... i see that as: two evils. the "fact" tat one is less evil than the other should be irrelevant... not should be, IS irrelevant. i think that we could supersede this out-dated bi-partisan system if people would start to look at that fact and, as you said and Aro endorsed, did something about it through their votes.
Post a Comment