A few days ago I was talking to a friend of mine; we'll call him Ted, about voting. He told me the last time he voted was 1992, back when Clinton was playing a saxophone, not an intern. Almost twelve years have passed since Teddy, born and raised in the United States, has bothered to vote.
I keep hearing more and more about how this election is important because so much is at stake. True, we are in the middle of a war, many people are out of work, and Old Europe still doesn't like us that much (*wink*). Yet I fail to see how this election is any more important than others.
November 2, 2004 is no different than any other first Tuesday in November in the last five decades. It only seems that way because of our current circumstances, but it's important to remember that we arrived here not singularly due to the outcome of the 2000 election but of the elections held eight, twelve, even twenty years ago.
What we vote for today affects us in the years and decades to come. Each election is never as simple as voting for a new guy every four years because their foreign and domestic policy decisions often times last longer than their time in office.
There are millions of people screaming up and down, mad as hell about Iraq — both in favor and against. Yet I dare say a good portion of those who oppose the war in Iraq did not bother to vote in 2000. And I bet that a good portion of those persons who are out of work also failed to participate in our last presidential election. My friend Ted is certainly among those in the first company of non-voters. And I'm sure you know at least one person who fits in one category or the other.
I'm not suggesting that if these non-voters had elected Al Gore four years ago we would all be living happier days, but I find it silly that these people, who have neglected their right to vote in the past now dare to tell me just how important democracy is.
Elections have always been important, it’s just too bad that it took hundreds-of-thousands of dead people and lost jobs for citizens like Ted to get it.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Exactly. If these people don't get out there and vote, I sure as heck better not hear them complaining about the current state of our country!
Fogetaboutit. If these folks at that clueless who wants them to vote?
Ignorant voters are worse than no voters.
Well said. I'm sick and tired of "voter apathy" stories, and I don't want to have to read any more.
I posted this late last week (in an uncharacteristic political post):
The campaign season gives us an illusion that everything ends at election day. It doesn’t; it begins then. If you don’t vote next Tuesday, you’re invisible for the next four years.
It doesn’t matter what you think for that time; you don’t vote, so politicians don’t listen to you. They tune their policies to appeal to people who vote, or at least people they think will vote.
I think this election is important for a different reason than the Iraq war, etc. On a recent visit to Independence Hall we were told the story of G Washington stepping down for the inauguration of J Adams. Delegates from Europe expected GW to send in the militia and arrest JA to prevent losing power. But instead the power of the presidency of the US was handed over peacefully, willfuly, and without contest, a precedent followed in every election up to 2000. Judging by Bush's and the GOP's actions in the 2000 election's power grab, I fully expect that precedent to be broken again this year. I don't know by which party, but I still expect it to happen. If so, Europe was right about those in power, just 200 years too early. I think this election is important because I want to see our peaceful and willful transfer of power restored again.
What really seems sad to me is how much the media has hyped this election. Not for one party or the other, just the election in general. Numbers are showing that there has been a large turnout of voters in states that allow early voting. Does it really take all the media hype to get people to vote? I think that's what bothers me the most. People don't get interested in voting unless the media hypes the election to death. And just like pjm said, people think everything ends at election day. Especially with all this media hype, no one will want to hear about the political system once we all hear the results.
"...and Old Europe still doesn't like us that much (*wink*)"
Don't feel too bad. It's nothing personal. :)
It's hard for me to understand how such friendly people like you can get it so very wrong sometimes. I'm talking about Bush and his henchmen here.
Kerry seems like a capable guy to me, but even if he isn't, he's bound to be less moronic than Bush. But that's just my 2 cents...
It is sad to see the Power of the media over America. It makes you think that if they media did decide to attempt to endorse one candidate with all it's resources, it could get that candidate elected. Maybe that is what is happening and we just don't see it yet...I doubt that actually...
It is far to easy to convince people of some things, and far to hard to convince them of other things...
It's hard for me to understand how such friendly people like you can get it so very wrong sometimes.
It's just our turn. When you guys had the ball men like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Napolean (with their henchmen) were handed the seat of power.
Greg, surely you are not referring to Bush as Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini...
No, I was merely pointing out that Europe is not free of making poor leadership choices and that no matter how wrong (or right) electing Bush was, it still doesn't hold a match to the Who's Who in Europe.
Hmm, how to respond...
I surrender and I accept your guilt trip for not voting. I should have voted. Question: Was it your vote that started or prevented a war? No. Nor was it mine. I do reject your assertion that not voting means you don't have the right to an opinion. It's tricky territory when you start saying that your opinion is more valid than others.
Strange, in this way, that I who didn't vote seem to be arguing for everyone's right to an opinion, while you, who did vote, seem to be arguing for the invalidity of some citizen's opinions.
Chew on that, suckuh!
Thanks for encouraging me to vote, I will do so.
it still doesn't hold a match to the Who's Who in Europe
Let's refer to the US past a bit : native american indians genocide, african slavery... hummm, does it "hold the match" with Napoleon and the other freaks ?
I know it's out of subject here, but I couldn't let go, I'm an old *wink* *wink* european.
Anyway, good point in your post. I share your deception/frustration in how people (we) always have to face an extreme situation to act.
We had a similar problem in France during the last presidential elections when the extreme right wing monster LePen succeeded to be in the last run against Chirac. It's been a real electrical shock - and I think we kind of needed it, and probably would need another one. Lots of people voted this time.I guess that it's related to the fact that we are basically lazy and only learn the hard way.
In my village there was a dangerous crossroad, very dangerous. Everybody knew it, yet nobody did anything about it. Until a young woman (beautiful on top of that) lost her life in an accident. And then you had a big shiny road sign and some modifications on the road itself.
We know that while we drive our cars we are warming up the planet, we know that sooner or later we won't have anymore oil to produce plastic (just look around you and realise what it will be like this day - big trouble), etc etc...
It's really fustrating, and we should all work hard on finding a way to improve the communication and the understanding of a possible future that is to be - or not - wished. We tried telling stories, paintings, books, movies... but it doesn't seem to do the job.
Any idea someone?
Teddy et. all non-voters, i's not that you can't, or shouldn't have an opinion, but my respect for that opinion is diminished when not tied to taking action.
Thibaut, I was responding to Joaquin's statement about electing Bush, not John Adams.
Greg, I just made reference to US glorious history as you did to Europe's one.
But anyway, you can't say that you got the ball, as bloody Milosevic and Karadzic still have it. Na!
I think it's totally unfair to blame people who didn't vote for the situation they are in now. People feel disenfranchised. They don't feel that their votes count, and in a large respect this is true. In the US the choice of who becomes president will be down to the votes of about one million people if a handful of swing states. By all means vote in California, just don't expect it to count for anything.
People don't feel that either candidate offers them anything. They are both white, privileged and well off and really don't care about the concerns of the majority of people. Why force people to choose between two candidates, neither of who reflect the voters belief. It's giving you the illusion that you have a say in the democratic process, when in reality it won't make much difference.
If you honestly don't believe in the policies of either candidate (not that they actually talk about their policies), it's perfectly reasonable not to vote for either of them.
but my respect for that opinion is diminished
And I'm saying that your position sounds ironic, because your high ground of voting should be about respecting everyone's opinion.
"People don't feel that either candidate offers them anything. They are both white, privileged and well off and really don't care about the concerns of the majority of people. Why force people to choose between two candidates, neither of who reflect the voters belief."
Since when is voting supposed to make you feel good? It's your civil duty to vote, not to feel good about the candidates. I don't recall seeing that it was ok not to vote because you couldn't personally identify with the candidates. Is that how it works in England?
"By all means vote in California, just don't expect it to count for anything."
That may be true for the Presidential race but lets not forget the senators, representatives, mayors, councilmen, school board members and all sixteen ballot measures that we (Californians) are also voting for. Similar contests are happening in the other 49 states. It's possible the Republicans will loose control of Congress which is arguably more important than which moron to put in the Whitehouse. That's just the part getting all the global attention.
And I'm saying that your position sounds ironic, because your high ground of voting should be about respecting everyone's opinion.
What does voting have to do with respecting opinions? I respect that a person may vote differently than I do but you trying to compare taking action vs. opining on the results of that action. Two different things.
And since when have I ever respected everyone's opinion?