CONTROVERSY GREETS EARLY VOTING (here we go again)

Just to be fair...I never called you any of those things.

I was making a point on why I feel voting was important. I guess I should have done it a different way.

I have yet to see a campaign that was 100% mudslinging and 0 issues. Even in the Perry-Sanchez race (the dirtiest I've seen in a long time) they both have articulated what they view the issues to be and developed a rudimentary stance on them.

I hate the mudslinging as much as the next guy. I'd much rather have each guy tell me what he thinks about the issues and I'll decide based on that...but that's not going to happen. Mudslinging isn't new...and it isn't going away.

Bottom line: I didn't intend for you to take such offense to my post. Sorry that it came across that way. As you can probably tell I take voting very seriously...I wish you didn't have such high levels of apathy.

 

DVauthrin

It is certainly within your rights to vote or not to vote. If you are looking for non-partisan information and where candidates stand on the issues without mudslinging check with the "League of Women Voters". The Austin area site is located at:

http://www.leaguewv.austin.tx.us/

As for your concerns that politicians don't cater to the young voter, I have three things to say.

1. For the most part you are correct
2. Politicians cater to the voting blocs that actually vote. More young voters need to get involved in the process and stop being apathetic.
3. One of these days you will be old. Social Security, Medicare, Prescription drugs, affordable health care, etc. may not affect you now, but they will in the future. Also, they may affect relatives of yours. All of that stuff DOES impact you indirectly.

 

Well I have faced the situation where I didn't like either of the candidates...I wrote somebody in. Yes...it was throwing my vote away...but I wanted to vote if only to vote against each of the candidates.

And those who vote will be selecting decision makers for the people. If you don't vote then even the decision of who to send to make the decisions will be made for you. You will have no input. To not understand that sounds naive.

 

The thing about the Issues, is they almost always take the backburner now. And a lot of these candidates are just spinning them in a way to get the necessary people to vote for them.

It was really horrific that I was going through a newspaper in Austin, and maybe one or two stories the past week were on the actual election issues or pertinent election stories: new voting technology.

But most of the articles were talking about candidates past bad deeds, or mudslingling or how campaign contributions are influencing elections-while its great for the media-which I am a part of, it is horrible for voters.

Races are not one-hundred percent mudslingling, but too many candidates forget the issues come first, and try to win elections by mudslinging, tv ads, campaign contributions or discrediting their opponents.

It's not supposed to be a competition but that's what it seems like it's become: a battle to simply get into office and power and that's the desired result.

They seem to forget too many times the important thing is what they do when anoited into office.

 

Since when did the League of Women Voters become non-partisan? That is laughable.

 

Trust me bobrek, I know the issues that affect my parents will affect me later in life, but until I see a race based on showing the public what the candidates TRULY believe, or close enough, not mudslinging, it will be very, very difficult for me to decide to vote.

I do not have a party affilation and believe in voting for the person I believe will do the best job. Too many people get constrained by party affilations when voting. I know some of my relatives do.

As a mentioned in my earlier post, I know the young voter dilemma is a double edged sword.

Finally, I think this whole process would be better off if it didn't feel like elections were a sport and commercialized. The debates and stuff should be on Public television networks who aren't involved as a moneymaking machine.

 

DVauthrin, the thought of Refman making decisions for anybody else is so frightening that you now have ample reason to register today....which means I agree with him....which is equally frightening to me.

 

Yeah...I think the same way of you.

 

Let me rephrase that...

The League of Women Voters generally send out a set of questions to all candidates. They then publish (unedited) the candidates response to the questions and make them available to read.

The questions may or may not be 'spun' a certain way, but you can see how all of the candidates respond to them without being taken out of context or just hearing a sound bite. They generally deal with the relevant issues particular to the folks in your voting area.

 

Now that I like.

Thanks for the link bobrek.

 

So you acknowledge the possibility of not caring for either candidate. Some people face that situation in EVERY election. Should they have to go write someone in every single time?

That is if you believe voting gives you "input". If there's no real choice, there's no input to give.

 

That's what we were trying to do with www.onlytheissues.com.

Then you're not trying hard enough. Voting for the people who will end up making decisions that will affect all of us takes a lot more than simply saying, "Umph, I don't like them, I'm not voting". Do a little research.

 

So you think more "research" is going to make me suddenly like one of the two candidates for governor?

If they're a member of a party, that's all the information I need to know I don't want to support them with a vote. But don't worry, I'll give your site a few hits anyway.

 

I don't like either one of them either, but I still feel like I need to vote. So, I've been looking at both candidates whenever I can find them under all that ****ing mud.

The point is, we're not picking a prom date here. I find it hard to believe that you can't find any politicians that you'd feel comfortable voting for.

Thanks for the hits.

 

We just have different standards apparently.

And you're not welcome for the hits. I'm doing it for Major, not you.

 

Hey, if it's good for Major, it's good for me.

I honestly go back and forth on the voting thing, and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to vote in the Governor's race this year.

 

Until we have a vote of no confidence in this country, not voting IS a vote. If you see no one you can vote for, I really don't see the point of driving to the polls to write in Mickey Mouse or Ronald Reagan or George Washington. I believe that in Australia they actually have a system where "no confidence" can win, forcing them to come up with better candidates, though I'm probably bastardizing that somehow (Smeg around to clarify?).

I'd go further though. I'd prefer that potential voters who actually characterize themselves as uninformed stayed home. If you want to talk duty, I'd say if you ARE going to vote, it's your civic duty to educate yourself on the candidates and the issues, and if you're not going to pay attention, it's your civic duty to stay home.

I don't blame DVauthrin at all for being put off to the point of tuning it all out. You can't turn on a television in Texas right now without hearing either how terrible the other candidate is or how the other candidate is lying about his opponent. I'm voting. I'm voting straight ticket Dem except for Governor and Land Commissioner. I'm voting for Patterson for Land Commissioner. Haven't decided if I'm not voting for Gov or voting for Perry as protest. I'm madder at 'my' party for fielding such an ass than the opposition party for fielding such an ass. Given my leanings, I actually expect the R candidate to be an ass, but it really makes me mad when the Dems give me somebody I can't possibly vote for in good conscience.

But back to the point of the thread: Given the current ambivalence of the electorate, it is beyond disgusting that there are people out there trying to keep people from voting, no matter which party they're from. The fact that they seem to be targetting a particular race is even more disgusting.

 

This isn't directly related, but why do they list parties on the ballot? I would love to see the results of the election if it was:

Tony Sanchez
Rick Perry

instead of

Tony Sanchez - D
Rick Perry - R

This isn't a Democrat / Republican thing, but I'm just curious how many people just vote straight party (that shouldn't be an option either) without knowing crap about the candidate.

 

I think voting straight party is valid in legislative races, because in many instances a legislator is pressured to vote along party lines. If I like what a (insert party here) is saying, but I don't want the dominant ideologies of that party being pushed through, then I would not vote for that candidate. There is to much politics in politics for me. I wish that bills were drafted by individual congressmen, submitted anonymously, notes for possible revisions submitted anonomously and reveiwed by the original author, and then the (possibly revised) bill was voted on anonomously from the congressmens homes. That way no one would no how anyone else was voting, or even which side of the isle the proposal was coming from. Legislation would be more about ideas than politicking.