It is impossible to believe how quickly we segued from 2006 election, which is barely over with its actual results not clear, right into 2008 presidential election. What gives? Weren't the politicians and media as tired of elections as most of the citizens? Apparently not.
So we have the front runners already and if they drop a point, it'll be horrible and a sign of decline. Give me a break. The election is almost two years off, why are they already producing poll results? This is going to be a very long two years. The ones running will make terrible mistakes and winnow themselves out. What there is about running for president that turns what seemed like wise people into dummies, I don't know, but it happens again and again. Still since it's out there, with so many already running, I thought I'd put my two cents into it with two thoughts.
First, nobody should vote for anybody because they will be the first of anything. We could have our first woman, first black or first Hispanic to be president. Who cares?! Nobody should. No woman should vote for any woman nor not vote for her simply because she's female and we are somehow proud for us. That's a silly reason. Whether we have a female elected president or we don't will not impact our rights as people. That comes from a people, court system, and politicians who believe gender and racial differences are not valid grounds for prejudice.
This morning I read where blacks weren't sure they would support Barack Obama and he'd have to work for their votes. Blacks should not support him simply because he's part black. Whoever they support should be who is best for the country. Someone, trying to prove to this or that group that their interests come before the whole, is not who I want as a leader. This is supposed to be one country with values that support equality for all. We clearly haven't always lived up to that; but it's the goal-- not favoritism based on race or gender.
I have a confession to make... One of the times (don't ask me which year) Jesse Jackson ran for president, he came to a town near me to campaign in the primary. I went to hear him. I really liked what he said and in that primary, I voted for him. He did not get the nomination. The next time Jesse Jackson ran for president, to me, he appeared to be running on improving things for blacks. Sorry, but whether that is needed or not, it doesn't cut it for me-- anymore than I'd vote for someone who said they'd make it better for whites.
Whoever runs for office should run on issues that better the nation not just me. I am really tired of 6 years of a president who is always talking about doing away with partisanship while the programs he espouses mostly benefit a small group of people. Sometimes you make the top stronger by doing good things for the bottom or vice versa, but it has to all work to benefit the whole or it's not getting my vote; and then I don't care what your race or gender is.
My second thought won't happen but I wish it would. I'd like to see us do away with the Electoral College and have the majority candidate win. If they don't get 50% because of a third party running, then maybe a run off would be a good idea, as some states do, until you have a clear majority of those who bother to vote.
The Electoral College may have served a purpose once, but I do not see how it does anymore-- other than block the will of the majority. John Kerry came very close to winning Ohio in '04 and if he had, he'd have been the second president in a row elected by less than the majority vote. How can that be good when it happens, as it did in 2000, with a candidate winning one state and overturning the majority vote of the rest of the people?
I know the arguments about balancing, but there is a more important point. We need to believe when we cast our vote, it counts and right now, in most states, it only does if you voted with the majority. Could this contribute to low voter turnouts? I think the purpose of the College is now gone; and if this country wants to have the people behind it, it has to give back the power to the people-- and trust them with it.
The only power we have as citizens of the United States is voting for president, senator and representative. We do not get to vote directly on issues. Once someone gets in office, they are there for the term; and no matter what they told their constituents to get elected, there is nothing to require that they will do it. Nothing short of impeachment removes them.
The majority voted for change in 2006 but we can see how little that mattered to the Bush administration-- lip service to it and then onward as originally planned. And whether the Democrats will bring about any real change is yet to be seen.
13 comments:
You are correct, but it doesn’t work that way. People will support someone based on race or gender. Look at OJ Simpson. Black people thought it was great that he was acquitted. Even though at the very least he had beaten his wife on many occasions. What is crazy is anybody that wears $8000 shoes is not really black, but neither of those things mattered to them. And many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. And you know Hispanics will vote for Richardson because he is one of them. We see it all the time here in California where we have had all of these groups in high political office for years. Much of the electorate in this country is really not that bright and do not base their votes on rational thought or what is best for the nation. But it is still the best system on the planet and I am not ready to abandon it. Although a multi-party parliament system would be fun to watch in this country.
If they go to a popular vote you will never see a presidential candidate in Oregon again or any place else that doesn’t have a population of 5 million. All a candidate would have to do is carry the urban centers of NY, LA, Miami and Chicago and they would win the popular vote. That would be a terrible thing as most of the country has issues very different than those super urban areas. It would only take one election for everyone to see that there is no point in voting because they cant out vote the big population centers. What would make real change and enfranchise voters would be assigning the Electoral College votes by congressional district not by state. Then people could see that their vote counted very much.
Your reason for not wanting the majority to win is because you don't trust people in big cities, I guess. They happen to have the most numbers and you want some way to negate the power of the majority-- the power of the people. Congressional districts don't work as they are gerrymandered now to ridiculous levels. I say trust the people and they might surprise you and the idea that someone in the country deserves double the power of their vote vs someone in the city makes zero sense to me.
As for whether people will vote for someone based on race or gender, I don't know. From the women I talk to, they won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman. It's about issues
oh and you would never see a presidential candidate from here now. You think Hagel has much chance coming from Nebraska; but if he came from any bigger state, he'd have a real shot at it. Give me a break.
You missunderstood what I was saying. Not that a candidate would come from Oregon or a small state. I was saying you would never see them visit a small state to campaign. They would only need to campaign in the major cities to win the election so why spend any time or money anywhere but those cities.
And you are correct I dont trust people in LA to make my decisions for me. They have enough control over the money and decisions of everything in California already. They dont need any more power. The founding fathers were very smart in trying to spread the wealth of who gets to make decisions in this country and I think we should keep it that way for now.
And as for the women that you are talking to, odds are they are probably like you, educated and interested in the political process. There are plenty of women and men out there that only listen to a couple of sound bites to make their voting decisions.
Why should a city person trust country people to have good values either? One man-one vote. That's what I believe. and when someone like Bush comes here, he comes only to talk to money donors, he's not benefiting me. Probably we still have all the farm subsidies thanks to electoral colleges and the donor system that dictates to our government things that don't benefit the majority but only those who can wave around the dollars
Are you just looking for a fight today?
We have farm subsidies thanks to congressmen and senators. And some of those senators have fewer constituents than many of the mayors in this country.
the president has to okay those things and both parties want to have theirs control the presidency. Farm subsidies have lasted because those states, way out of proportion to their numbers, are very important in the presidential races. Sure the senators and representatives from there want them for their people but the president signs off on it.
And no, don't want a fight. I am in a great mood today :)
Great post, Rain. Good points made by ingineer66, too, but I don't see it. I'm with you. It's about the issues.
I will vote partly on the issues and partly on my judgement as to how well the candidate conducts themselves giving me confidence that the running president will perform the demands of the job.
I just fear that there won't be two worthy candidates and I will have to pick the least poor candidate.
You and ingineer 66 both make compelling points. i have always said I would prefer the popular vote, but I see his point. I have tended to vote for candidates, not to make a statement about firsts. I don't think Hillary can win although I like her politics very much and Obama doesn'r have the life experience. I find this sad because I want change but I don't see it happening.
Maybe presidents and leaders should be selected like Dalai Lamas--identified and trained from birth. Fat chance. It is going to be a long two years, but I'm so disheartened, sometimes the whole process seems like a cosmic joke.
I watched the candidates who spoke at the DNC Winter Meeting yesterday. I have a preference, but aside from that I was disappointed that... okay, it was Hillary... made the point more than once that there was little to be done by the Democratic majority until they had a bigger majority and/or her as President. I thought, did we bring these people in to keep the seats warm for two years?
You think she would have learned from last time she was president. The dems had the house, senate and presidency and they said gridlock was over and they tried to rule by decree and 2 years later we had the republican revolution because people discovered gridlock might not be a bad idea.
I echo everything you said here. I've wondered for years about that Electoral College.
And as for me, many times it's made me feel most definitely MY vote didn't count worth a whit. I believe it's obselete and needs to be done away with.
And ditto on voting for gender, race, etc. The American public needs to get "out" there, research the candidates, see which one can do the most good for the most people...and let THAT be their choice.
Great post, Rain.
Post a Comment