A political confession.
Posted by Matt W. on May 16th, 2007I don’t vote. The only times I have been to vote, I just pick, “don’t know” on almost all the choices.
It’s just that the opportunity cost isn’t worth it for me. The time it would take me to learn about the local issues in order to have an informed opinion is more than I am willing to spend. I am unwilling to make an uninformed decision. So I decide not to vote.
I have voted three times, and the last time, I picked “undecided” for every entry. The first time I was still in high school and picked random things, like an 8 year old playing with the ATM while he waits for his mommy, and the second time I really did vote, and it felt more like I was gamblng on horses than making a decision.
So, I’m LDS, I’m encouraged to be involved and vote, but well, I just am totally apathetic about it. I think the two party system is a big false dichotomy with about the equivilance of choosing between coke and pepsi. Liberalism and Conservatism are lies people use to sell product in different markets, and only obfuscate things more for me. I mean, Conservatives act like their the only ones who are pro-life and Liberals act like they’re the only ones who are pro-choice, but it doesn’t divide evenly on that line. You can be a pro-life liberal, just look at Harry Reid. The same can be said for almost any issue. People label themselves, but since the labels aren’t really connected to specific issues any longer, the labels mean nothing. It just seems like a down right dirty lie that the democrats are the only people who want to feed the poor, and the republicans are the only ones who want less government control.
Anyway, I am politcally apathetic. That’s my confession.
Ready….. change!
Comment # 1 left by John on May 16th, 2007
I find voting hard. It’s difficult to really know about the issuses, and straight party voting is not something I like, either, because both parties have good and bad. The whole thing kind of wears me out.
Comment # 2 left by Michelle on May 16th, 2007
Matt,
Here’s your homework assignment.
Comment # 3 left by Connor on May 16th, 2007
I only started voting because I got married and my wife got me into the booth. Before that, and it has never changed, I didn’t vote because any and all people I wanted voted in got in with or without me. That has changed a little now, but because I have become a more specific voter.
Comment # 4 left by Jettboy on May 16th, 2007
I will not vote until my preference is listed as a choice, and if it won (it actually wins most every time), would be strictly enforced. I want a choice that means not only none of the above, but NO ONE - shut the office down for it’s term. I believe that by not voting most people prefer this choice.
Comment # 5 left by ed42 on May 16th, 2007
Matt, the very same frustrations lead me to look at what each party truly has to offer. To me, Mormons are Republicans because of moral issues, but are largely unaware of what the Republican party stands for on real political issues. Democrats are too statist for me, and trust the government beyond what the founders could possibly swallow… so now I’m libertarian and I love it because it allows me the freedom to stick to my gut instinct on everything, regardless of what some larger party allegiance may want me to think (my guy for pres. is Ron Paul, BTW). So in a sense, I can say in the same breath that I am anti gun control (most Reps agree with that), and I’m pro-choice (most Dems agree with that). I choose to be that way because to me, both cases grant the individual the greater freedom to choose. I hear you - I dislike both sides as well, and pick a (mostly useless) third party so I can think what I want without lame party allegiance.
Comment # 6 left by David J on May 16th, 2007
I think there is more to party allegiance than many give credit to. There is a general trend which helps establish what way to lean. Here is my view of the basics of the two major parties:
Democrats: Generally feel that the role of good government is to help the individual. One man - one vote. Democracy. They realize that in some cases the country as a whole might have to give something for this to happen. But seem to sincerely believe that if they help enough individuals that the country as a whole will benefit.
Republicans: Generally feel that the role of good government is to do what is best for the country as a whole. Representatives of the people. Republic. They realize that in some cases the individual may not have their needs met for this to happen. But seem to believe that if the help the country as a whole, that the individual will benefit.
To me this explanation helps me understand why the two parties take the stands on the issues that they do. I usually vote pretty much by party because I prefer on general approach over the other. I know that there may be some individuals get through this way that maybe should not. But the trend is what I am after. This way I do not have to study every single issue and candidate.
Comment # 7 left by Eric Nielson on May 17th, 2007
Conner: But I often find I am picking the lesser of two wicked men…
David J: I am registered as independent.
Eric N: I just am not sure these philosophies are true. Is there some sort of hard and fast examples you can provide to show how these philosophies play out, say in GWB’s and BClinton’s runs?
Comment # 8 left by Matt W. on May 17th, 2007
There will always be exceptions to this general philosophy. I guess I would rather start with issues than people.
I was once confused as to why Republicans tended to be pro-life and Democrats tended to be pro choice. But this philosophy fits. If Republicans belive that being pro-life is best for society as a whole, then they will tend to be pro-life. If Democrats believe that pro-choice is what is best for the individuals involved, then they will tend to be pro-choice.
Something like gun-control. If Republicans feel that the interests of society are better served in the long run to support the second ammendment, then they tend to support it. Sure there may be a few unfortunate accidents, but perhaps dociety would be better off if we could police ourselves at times. If Democrats feel that individuals would benefit by having stiffer gun-control laws then they will tend to be in favor of them.
With Clintons attempt to socialize the medical system of the US during his first term - I believe Democrats tended to have the interests of individuals who could not afford health care in mind. And they were willing to pay the price as a society to provide that for these individuals. That is why many Democrats favor such things. Most Republicans did not favor this action because it carried to great a cost to society as a whole, and they were willing to let individuals possibly go without the level of health care in order to avoid costs on society at large.
With Iraq. I think GWB feels that if democracy were established in Iraq that this would benefit society at large. Sure, there will be a cost in some individual suffering, but the potential benefits to society outweigh those costs (in his mind). Most Democrats, and many others, are opposed to this because it is harming to many individuals.
I know what I am saying is very general, and greatly oversimplified. But it helps me to predict and explain what side of certain issues the major political parties will fall on. I find it easier to take a systematic approach to politics and voting than a case by case approach. I don’t have the time or interest for that.
Comment # 9 left by Eric Nielson on May 17th, 2007
But I often find I am picking the lesser of two wicked men…
All the more reason why the onus is on us right now to actively support and promote wise and honest men, rather than letting the media, special interests, and big business narrow down the selection for us.
It’s only because of apathy that we end up with two men who both suck. Should we rally behind the right candidate early on, we wouldn’t be stuck with the “lesser of two wicked men”…
Comment # 10 left by Connor on May 17th, 2007
I think the two party system is a big false dichotomy with about the equivilance of choosing between coke and pepsi.
Spoken like a person who doesn’t pay attention to politics, but then, you already admitted that.
here some sort of hard and fast examples you can provide to show how these philosophies play out, say in GWB’s and BClinton’s runs?
Compare the justices GWB put on the Supreme Court to the ones BC did. You will most certainly see a difference, no matter which ones you happen to prefer.
Comment # 11 left by Jacob on May 17th, 2007
The major parties are two wings on the same bird of prey, neither pay any attention to “thou shalt not steal”, (happily taking 50% of our income), “thou shalt not murder” (support the troops! - gotta wipe out the bad guys), “thou shalt not bear false witness” (I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution - except when it gets in the way), “thou shalt not covet” (see taxes) and “thou shalt not have any other gods before me” ( I swear fidelity to a piece of cloth!)
Comment # 12 left by ed42 on May 17th, 2007
Ed42,
“thou shalt not murder” (support the troops!)
Accusing our troops of murder is a bit over the top, don’t you think?
Comment # 13 left by Jacob J on May 17th, 2007
Eric: this is an interesting idea, but I guess I need it drilled down a bit more. I am not sure I see how the social medicine is individual focused first and whole focused second, or how if it were focused on the whole first it wouldn’t be good to have social medicine. I guess to me both views seem individual focused, it just depends on which individuals. Does the whole simply boil down to the Majority?
Connor: It is because of apathy we end up with two men that suck, but I don’t want to run for office.
Jacob: I just suck at politics. I don’t understand the difference in the justices, and picking justices seems more like political gambling/investing to me anyway, as there are no guarantees.
Comment # 14 left by Matt W. on May 17th, 2007
Jacob J,
Have our troops been commanded by God to kill others?
The only way around “thou shalt not murder” is getting a pass from God. As explained in the BoM we get a such a pass when we DEFEND our wives, children, etc. Also explained in the BoM we get no such pass when we initiate the OFFENSE.
Comment # 15 left by ed42 on May 17th, 2007
Ed42,
So, should we start the excommunication process for all the Mormon servicemen? Are you thinking about what you are saying? Do you consider all of our Vietnam vets to be murderers? John McCain, John Kerry …murderers? Frankly, I find it remarkable that anyone will sign their name to such an offensive accusation.
Comment # 16 left by Jacob J on May 18th, 2007
Matt:
Yes the whole will usually represent the majority. You see, republicans favor electing representatives who they hope will have the best interests of the country as a whole at heart. Democrats would favor the one-man one-vote on issues.
I am actually not making any of this up Matt. I am not expressing original ideas in the least. This is basically American poly-sci 101. I even think the basics of this are inthe Citizenship in the Nation merit badge book.
Comment # 17 left by Eric Nielson on May 18th, 2007
Matt:
Another good example is affirmative action.
Democrats tend to favor this becasue it helps individuals, and if you help enough individuals society will benefit.
Republicans tend not to favor this because it takes a lot of money from other things to benefit a minority of people. They would prefer to keep education efficient and fundamental and accessible to those who really want it. Creating an opportunity for educational success within society, then individuals will benefit.
I guess the real point of all this is that I might recommend that you think about what government should be doing - what is its role? And then see if there is a political party that closely matches your idea of good government. This way you can have a default party and approach to issues without having to dig into each issue and candidate.
Comment # 18 left by Eric Nielson on May 18th, 2007
Matt - back to your original post. I think you need to seriously re-consider your position on voting. Certainly one vote will not sway any election (Well, I take that back. My father lost an election for County Assessor in my little hme town farming community (the whole county has about 4000 citizens) and the margin was, in fact, only one vote. The incumbant had been in office for 25 years and my dad lost by one vote. Amazingly enough he never tried running again.) But I digress.
I make a point to vote in every election because I feel that if I don’t exercise that right, someday it may be taken away from me. And I personally believe that if you don’t vote you don’t have the right to complain about the ones in office….and I love to complain about the ones in office!
Casting my vote gives me a patriotic rush - something I hardly ever get and it makes me feel good. I admit that I am not always up to snuff on the additional ballot issues - like bond issues - but I find that you can make a reasonably informed decision by reading the information that is given while you stand in line (given by the polling officials not the partisans who stand outside the polling place) and then make an intelligent decision from that. On the other hand you can always skip the votes that you’re not sure about.
Give it some thought and reconsider. It will make a difference in your life.
Comment # 19 left by Lamonte on May 18th, 2007
One of my first posts on my own blog was on this very topic. Like the title suggests, I often feel like politics are rather Seussian - maybe I’ll write a poem about it some day.
Comment # 20 left by SilverRain on May 24th, 2007
You know, there’s some great things about voting and about our government….and some really screwed up things. The key is to don’t be disillusioned by all of the crap….that’s what beats people into apathy. Seriously, its possible to vote,care, just be prepared to shrug a whole lot of issues and things off. But, our people and the method of government we have-warts and all, is pretty great.
#9—What a straw man.
Comment # 21 left by Sherpa on May 29th, 2007