Do your duty
Published on October 13, 2004 By Cafin8ted In Politics
New Page 1

An Interesting Dilemm

Has any one noticed, That in the last 10 years or so, we have been shown what states belong to each presidential candidate. Long before the elections are held. We are shown, state by state, in RED and BLUE, who has that state. I was watching the news tonight, and yet again, I saw what my vote was going to be. I asked myself how can this be, I haven't voted yet. I haven't been asked how I am going to vote, and as far as I know, there are at least 3 weeks till the polls open. Now I know we have a history, a constitutional vote (electoral college). I also know that those "should" be represented by a popular vote, but all that points to the fact, that a vote has to be counted. So again I ask how come the people in Florida are told, how I am going to vote in California, weeks before I actually vote.

Here is my real issue. We have changed, evolved if you will, on how we get are information. We receive news today, hundreds of times faster today, than we did when the constitution was ratified. We have more information given to us about each candidate then we ever have in our history. We can follow the campaign trail of each hopeful in almost real time. And it seams to me that we can see into the future. If the people in Florida are told for weeks that they are sending there electoral college votes to candidate A, and after the election, candidate B has won the electoral vote, then this must mean that there was misconduct on the part of party B. We have come to expect that we have been given the correct information by the media, and therefore why should we vote. By the time that California's poles close, half the country has already reported in. So why Vote.

This bring me to another issue. Why vote, we already know who is going to win. we have all the information weeks in advance. why should I vote. This is what kills me, people think they don't need to go to the poles because "my vote has already been counted". Then on-top of that they still think they have the "right" to debate politics with me. To this I say Bah. If you can't get your butt to the poles, please don't debate with me, you have lost your "right" to bicker about the way things have gone. Do your research, figure out what the real issues are, go to the polling station, do your duty, and then you have earned your "right" to bicker.

I think we need to do something about the way we are told what are vote is going to be. I think we need to have more education on how are constitution works. I don't know maybe we need to change the way the electoral collage works, or even get rid of it all together and use just a strait popular vote. The issue there is I have never seen a totaly bullet proof plan for such a thing to work. One problem is we "states" put so much money into getting a ballot put together with as much stuff on it as possible, so that we don't have to spend X amount again, for another election. Do it all at once, which mucks up the whole process.

Anyway, enough of me ranting - Let me hear what you have to say, give me your opinions.

Wirefree


Comments
on Oct 13, 2004
Wirefree, I think you make some interesting observations about our current political system. To allay your fear that "By the time that California's poles close, half the country has already reported in" I believe that most news agencies have agreed not to predict a winner of the presidential race until all the polls have been closed. Unless, of course the election is such a blow-out before the west coast polls close, that it will make no diference to whom their electorial votes go to. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember hearing something along those lines shortly after the 2000 election mess.
on Oct 13, 2004
T Bone4Justice - Hey thanks for your comments, and I wish it were as simple. What I mean is, the election results are already being reported. The thing that bugs me is that the "Media" is polling already, and has stated / forecasted which electoral votes / states belong to which presidential hopeful. The effect here is that "uninformed" "uneducated" voters do not try to get informed / educated. The new voter feels disenfranchised, unimportant. I feel the "media" should back off on forecasting the election, and be more proactive in the education of the issues. To get the voters to understand that they do count, they do make a difference.
In short I hope you don't feel like I am disagreeing with you - I agree with your statements, I just feel it isn’t enough. I am glad to see that others have observed what I have seen.

Wirefree
on Oct 13, 2004
Sometimes the media is wrong. "Dewey defeats Truman".

If you want to go to a popular vote the next question is: do you want to have runoffs?
on Oct 13, 2004
The proposal I like is what Maine and Nebraska do, which is give each congressional district one electoral vote, and 2 to the state at large.
on Oct 13, 2004
Go Big RED
on Oct 13, 2004
Hahaha, yes go Cornhuskers!!

I also think if we limited the President's term to one six year term, the news would have one hell of time telling what state is going for who, because new candidate every six years!!

- Grim X
on Oct 13, 2004
See what I mean - there seems to be some good ideas out there, but none are that magic bullet. I honestly think if we could get mindless drones (not "Blog" reader) to educate themselves, instead of allowing the media to force feed them an opinion - we could be much better off
Wirefree