Yesterday I was discussing the upcoming election with a co-worker, specifically fiscal conservatism. She was saying, "Yeah, but who isn't fiscally conservative? Who says, 'Please take my money and waste it?'" As we began debating what fiscal conservatism really means, I made a comment that ultimately, how we spend our money is sort of up to the American people, as we're the ones who choose the folks who do the spending.
"I'm afraid of the American people," she said. "Have you seen the sort of decisions they make?"
It gave me pause.
The decision that bothers me most is when my fellow Americans decide not to vote at all.
The majority of the American people (if not the popular majority, the electoral college majority) disagreed with me in the last two elections. So yeah, I have some issues with the American people. But a disturbingly low percentage of the electorate actually voted. And that drives me bloody insane.
Whether or not you agree with me, I want you to vote. I want you to exercise your right to add a voice to what goes on in Washington. I may completely disagree with you (John McCain) and think you do your gender a daily disservice with your views (Sarah Palin), but I STILL want you to vote. I know, it's a contradiction. I should want only liberal Dems to vote. But if that happened, we wouldn't really have a democracy, and I need to believe in our form of government fundamentally to get me through those moments when I completely disagree with it ideologically (the last eight years). I need to believe the people had a say in which moron is running the country. Not corporations, not lobbyists, not national committees, but the American people.
Why? The American people are capable of growth and change. The American people are capable of getting pissed off and voting folks out of office, as they did in the past mid-term election. The American people are capable of saying "enough is enough" in a way lobbyists and national parties never will. The American people can change their minds, they can stay the course, they can do whatever they damn well please. The American people don't owe anything to anyone, and ultimately, the American people DO GET TO DECIDE. If they vote, that is.
Whether or not I agree with you, I hope you vote. I need to believe in our system after the last eight years. I need to believe whomever is elected this November is the candidate the country's majority wanted. I can't deal with another round of knowing over half the people stayed home and waited to see what would happen.
Elections are one of the very few times in our society that every citizen of voting age is equal. No one knows how educated you are, what your race is, where you grew up, what gender you are, whether you're pretty or ugly. No one cares. All they care is how you cast that ballot, and yours and mine weigh the same. What a gift.
I'm not afraid of the American people disagreeing with me. I believe in the American people's ability to learn from our collective mistakes. In the end, though, if my choice for president is defeated, I need to believe it was a group decision made by a majority of the country. So please, get out and vote. Otherwise special interests will make our decisions for us.
Comments
Well Said
Absolutely agree with you.
Michelle
I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/
The National Popular Vote bill
The major shortcoming of the
current system of electing the
President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a
handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds
of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and
99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were
merely spectators to the presidential election.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign,
or worry about the voter concerns in
states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly
behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a
state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in
each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the
Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has
occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential
elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two
states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential
candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National
Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the
candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically
relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect
only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is,
enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes
into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the
presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states
(and DC).
The National
Popular Vote bill has passed 21
state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both
houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New
Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey,
and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com