I wanted to write this after the last election, but due to my web host search and the frustration with Blogger, I didn't really have a space to do it. So working on the theory that late is better than never ... here goes.
Like many voters in the USA, I have a lot of problems with our current electoral process. Choosing a candidate to vote for - finding a good candidate to vote for - among those who are running, frequently ends up being a choice between the lessor of two evils. Frankly, I'm getting tired of not being able to vote for a candidate; I always seem to be casting my vote against the other guy. I truly wish we could have the option of casting a vote for "None of the above." That choice should be available on every ballot. Perhaps this would cure the voter apathy in this country.
So many people feel - why bother - so they don't vote. When you consider how many people didn't vote in the last presidential election, added to those who voted for someone other than George Bush, the majority of the US population did not chose to have George Bush as their president - yet here he is.
Now I don't like George Bush. I didn't like Al Gore either, but I voted for him in a futile effort to keep GWB out of the Oval office. So much for that. The last presidential candidate that I actually voted for was Gerald Ford. He lost too. I don't have a very good track record.
This past election I had a clear choice on the local level. My town has an all Democratic council. Because they are all of the same party and the party organization is strong in this town, they tend to do things behind closed doors. The individual council members are often coerced by the party management to vote the way the party management wants rather than what is in the best interest of the citizens. If they don't go along, they don't get to run again. So I voted for the Republican candidate - a nice guy with good intentions, but not much experience. He lost.
On the county level, I had a choice between the current mayor of my town - a Democrat, and a former mayor of my town - a Republican. Since I can't stand the current mayor, and I know and like the former Mayor - I voted for him. He lost.
Getting up into the Senate and Congressional races ... for the Senate, I had a choice between sending GWB another Republican, or Robert Torricelli who was censured for shady campaign financing. Just Ducky!
When Senator Torricelli backed out of the race a little over one month before Election Day, The Democrats chose former Senator Frank Lautenberg to run in his place. The
Republicans raised a ruckus and took the situation to court. The NJ Supreme Court decided that the right of the people to a choice of candidates outweighed an election rule that says you have to resolve such problems by a certain deadline (which had passed). The Republicans cried foul and declared that the Supreme Court was meddling in the election (sound vaguely familiar <g>).
I didn't like Frank Lautenberg when he ran before, so I certainly wasn't going to vote for him this time. What a dilemma!
I finally voted for the Green Party candidate in protest. Where is that "None of the above" option when you need it? The Green party candidate lost.
I didn't vote for a congressional representative because I dislike the
Democratic candidate (who won), and again I refused to send another Republican to aid GWB. There was no Green Party candidate running against them.
I really hate the way we chose our candidates. Independents rarely have a chance because all the financing comes from either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Rare is the candidate who can afford to pay the expenses of even a local election.
The Big Two parties get much of their financing from major corporations and Political Action Committees - all of whom expect favors after the election. This leaves the candidates in debt to these organizations - more so than to the people who voted for them. So guess who gets the short shrift when it comes to voting on issues that effect us all.
Another thing that bugs me is all the negative campaign ads. Why can't they just tell me what problems they see and what they would do to fix them? I don't want to know why they think their opponent is bad; I want to know why I think they themselves are good.
I want to see some new faces on the political scene. I want to be able to vote for a good candidate who is not beholden to anyone but the voters who put him/her in office. And once he gets there I want him/her to remember at all times that he serves at our will.
Is that asking too much?
Posted by Cyberkat at November 25, 2002 2:12 PM | TrackBack