Voting For a Butterfly Endorsement
By the way, having spin doctors from two opposing extreme sides of an issue is NOT, I retype NOT, synonymous with expert analysis.
I keep hearing about “Get Out the Vote” (or whatever) campaigns. I’ve never been a big fan of that. If you don’t want to vote, don’t vote. Why should I care? I’m more for people earning the right to vote. I recently wrote a letter to the editor saying there should be a quiz when you enter a polling place. One question: “Do you believe anything you’ve read or seen in a political ad?” If the person answers no, direct the person to the voting booth. If the person answers yes, send them home. I don’t want idiots messing up an election. (I didn’t use that last line in the letter to the editor, FYI.)
Since then, I’ve thought up another solution to weed out bad voters: Vote limits. You get one vote per year. You can either vote for president or you can vote for the next American Idol. Or you can vote best South Park episode for their marathon. Or you can vote for which couple gets the Dream Wedding from the Today Show. One. Only one. Not more. Your choice.
In fairness to bad voters, it is very difficult to be a voter these days. With all the spin, the legislation votes taken out of context, the reliance on the media to guide us through the muck, and the lack of time to do research, a voter seemingly doesn’t have a chance. Back in the 1980s, people spoke of the political litmus test: abortion. A candidate or judge nominee either passed or failed depending on how well his or her view of abortion matched with yours. Now every issue seems to be a litmus test. “20 years ago, candidate A voted to ban machine guns from elementary schools, therefore candidate A is going to ban the second amendment and must be defeated.” “20 years ago, candidate B worked for Company Z which now exports jobs to Haiti, therefore candidate B is corporate and must be defeated.” There’s just no room for middle ground and, more importantly, you are expected to limit yourself to being a one issue voter. It’s no wonder folks have a difficult time motivating themselves to vote.
The befuddled voter has a powerful weapon to clean up the election mess: third party voting. The United States votes at about 50%, approximately half of those votes go to the Democrat and approximately half of those votes go to the Republican. That means that one candidate gets about 25 percent of the eligible votes. If everyone who wouldn’t otherwise vote would go to the polling place and vote for third party candidates, it would, at best, be an election slaughter of the Democrats and Republicans. At worst, it would be an embarrassment for the Democrats and Republicans and they would have to respect voters.
We tried this in Minnesota and it worked a little, but not much. I think it was because the third party candidate we elected (Jesse Ventura) was a celebrity so the “major” parties didn’t take his election seriously. However, it did create some bipartisanship, even if the bipartisanship effort was to try to make Ventura look bad. But, after that, the two “major” parties learned that they need to take third party candidates seriously--which resulted in third party candidates being the unusual targets of the usual smear campaigns. Hey, it’s a step. But if voters (especially those who wouldn’t vote otherwise) would keep voting for third party candidates, we could get a delightful republic going again.
So once one maneuvers through the manure piles known as political campaigns, for whom does one vote? I’m glad I asked.
I cannot vote for George W. Bush. First off, with his environmental policies, foreign policies, education policies, workplace policies, economic policies, judicial nominations, social policies, and consumer policies, he’s a threat to the American way of life and the constitution. Second, I voted against him in the last election. Voting for him now would be “flip-flop,” and we certainly can’t be accused of THAT!
Changing one’s mind is certainly fair and, I would say, a positive trait. It shows that you’re thinking, open to new ideas and information, and not so full of yourself that you think you’re perfect. (So few of us are perfect--I know this because I only see a handful of people at our meetings.) The problem is when you start changing your opinion to pander to your audience. That makes you a politician. (Boooooo!!!) Frankly, I think it would be almost impossible for either party’s politicians to not get caught pandering.
First, we look at the Republicans. The humor works better by first looking at the Democrats, but their explanation is based on Republicans.
The Republican base is people who are rich and demand to be richer. The Democratic base is essentially everyone else.
Because of the party’s huge tent, the Democrats should, theoretically, have a more difficult time not pandering. Some needs of the poor may inherently contradict some needs of the working class. Needs of farmers may inherently contradict needs of environmentalists. Needs of the small business owner may inherently contradict needs of the employee. Needs of law enforcement may inherently contradict needs of civil liberty activists. Etc. If you can find a Democratic candidate who speaks to the entire tent and doesn’t pander, at least a little, you’ve found yourself a god of a politician. (Feel free to run the other way.)
Surprisingly, the Republicans need to do a little pandering themselves. You’d think with such a limited base it would be easy for them.
Candidate: We’re going to condemn those who support abortion. What do you think?
Wealth Elite: Do I still get a tax cut?
Candidate: Oh yea!
Wealth Elite: Sweet! Go nuts.Candidate: We’re going to condemn gay marriage.
Wealth Elite: How will this affect my business’ bottom line?
Candidate: You won’t have to give benefits to same sex spouses
Wealth Elite: God bless you!
However, it isn’t that easy because the Republican tent is so small. You see, rich and demanding to be richer is a small group of people; not nearly enough to get a person elected. So Republicans start throwing around stuff they don’t care about, depending upon their audience like environmental concerns, tax cuts weighted towards the working class, education, money for law enforcement, etc. Then, when elected, they suddenly change their minds. (Imagine.)
Anyway, I’m not going to flip-flop or pander to my Republican friends. I won’t be voting for Bush.
Ralph Nader is still the best choice. However, there is a big difference between 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Al Gore wouldn’t have been an improvement over the incumbent president (Clinton). Ralph Nader would have been an improvement and I voted for him. In 2004, John Kerry is a dramatic improvement over the incumbent president (Bush) so I fully support people voting for him. Ralph Nader, however, is better than both, so I fully support people voting for him.
Another tangent. I’m not one who believes Nader takes votes away from candidates. Claiming Nader took votes away from Gore suggests that Gore owned those votes. No candidate owns any vote except the one (1) he or she casts. Second, it excuses the act of approximately 50,000,000 voters who voted for Bush. That’s an embarrassment. It should not have come down to Nader. It should not have come down to Florida. There was--and is still--no excuse for voting for Bush. Blame the people who voted for him, not Ralph Nader or his supporters.
My solution to the third party candidate issue is this: a national presidential primary. Put all the people running for president on a primary ballot. Every voter gets to vote for two candidates. The top two vote getters are then the two candidates on the presidential ballot for the general election and the other candidates are eliminated. The political parties would, if they want, choose which candidate they want to endorse and the national party endorsed candidates would be placed at the top of the ballot. That way there wouldn’t be a third candidate for people to complain about, but third party candidates would have a fair shot.
But that still doesn’t tell you whom I’m endorsing.
So here’s the deal. I’m endorsing a candidate for two groups of people. If you’re the voting type who likes John Kerry or who is undecided, I encourage you to vote for Kerry. If you’re not the voting type or can’t really stomach voting for Bush or Kerry, I encourage you to vote for Ralph Nader.
If you’re the voting type who likes Bush, you’re probably too simple-minded to comprehend the previous paragraph. I won’t confuse you further by encouraging you to vote.
Just consider it my campaign pander to you.
return to Commentary index
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.
© 2004, Mark Wentz