It is naive to vote based purely on issues. You must take into consideration who has a chance to win, because that is what other people are going to do. For example, if someone's political ideal was closest to Nader, then they would probably be much closer to Gore than to Bush. Given that, it would be foolish to vote for Nader, as you might as well just not be voting at all, and you are not decreasing the chances of Bush to win. In some sort of idealized society we could all vote for the candidate that best represents us. Instead, people with different but similar political philosophies band together to support a candidate that can beat the candidate that another group of people with much different ideals than the first have put forth. It's called reality. Welcome.
Your anti-Bush emotions are noted. Glad you took the opportunity to chime in. What % of the American populous is as thorough and well-read as you apparently are? I believe that, generally speaking, it is not a promising trend to have people making their voting decisions as reflexive, "anti" votes. I think it is tremendously discouraging how uneducated voters are on the issues and how the candidates play to that ignorance by speaking only in grand generalizations about "my dream for America" without any practical "how I'm going to do it" talk at all. I am not concerned with who ANY OF YOU are going to vote for or why...I have had plenty of chances to read about how you hate Bush and think he's the worst President ever, but maybe I just haven't made clear my quesiton...I am concerned with why the rest of the apathetic American electorate is going to vote and why, and not just specifically in THIS election.
everyone should vote my way and only my way. you would be dissapointed a lot more if you monitored the voting process in other democratic countries like england, india, taiwan and france. I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but the questions you keep on asking are being answered. perhaps its because once you read something offensive to you in a thread, you automatically put your defensive blinders on, numbing comprehension? it happens to all of us. you said it right there when said "undeducated voters", it does take a lot to understand the issues. You also disregard that a measurement of felt prosperity in a country are the number of apathetic voters. there are people who don't care and don't see any physical gains to their lives when they vote, yet we are emphasized to vote for a number or reasons. remember, we are emphasized to vote, not to care about the issues. its not your perfect world, padge, but that is the double edged sword of american democracy.
I am more concerned with the fact that less than half of the Americans who are registered to vote will actually cast a ballot in the 2004 Presidential Election. This speaks louder to me than an analysis of why those who do vote are voting the way they do.
Right! And the 2 are related b/c no parties are generating/promoting Leaders; they're promoting Electable Hair-dos with pretty smiles and pleasant speech patterns. Look at the harrumph created when Bush's obvious lack of public speaking expertise was exposed...people cracked jokes right and left! It's just a shame to see it become such a popularity contest, but it's a monster that we've created, I guess. The notions of true leadership and innovation are completely lost, it seems, b/c of both parties need to immediately grab more power at any cost.
Legitimate issues and questions you are raising here, ones that deserve more than a drive by "Bush sux" type answer. The problem is that this is a subject you could earn your PhD in Political Science trying to answer. Why are voters apathetic? has it always been like this? If not, when did it change and why? Is voter turnout lower than it ever has been? Do older people vote in higher numbers than young people? Rich vs Poor? Educated vs. Non-educated? How can we increase interest? How can we encourage turnout? These are questions nobody on a message board is going to be able to give you with a sound byte type answer.
You are right in that it is a monster we have created. We have no one to blame for this but ourselves. Now that we need a President like Abraham Lincoln more than ever, an Abraham Lincoln-like person would recoil at the notion of running for President in 2004.
Hi padgett, To get to your main question, I've simplified it for myself. As someone who has utilitarian tendencies, I try to assess what vote would do the most good for the most people around me. That's the honest truth. What vote, in its limited power, could do the most good for, in particular, my countrymen and women. So, in the last election, in my humble opinion, I voted for Gore, even though he was more wooden than Canoe Reeves and far from perfect. As a liberal, I might have been tempted by Nader, but that vote, to ME, would have felt masturbatory. (In that particular case, I also felt Ralph had no platform to speak of, just a single plank, and I felt he would have made a horrible president). But you get the general idea. It's not perfect, but that's how I try to do it in each election, both local and national.
B-bob, Out here in Commufornia it wouldn't really matter who you vote for, the state overwhelmingly supports liberal candidates most of the time (the most recent and obvious exception is the Governator, of course). I'm pretty sure that Gore carried Cali by a wide margin. I doubt I will even bother to vote in the upcoming election, as my vote would count about as much as a Texan voting for Gore in 2000.
