Winners, and True Believers
by Tex Norman(134)
I’d never been that politically active and the whole experience brought questions to my mind that remain unresolved. Who should we endorse? Do we endorse the candidate that reflects our member’s issues best? You’d think YES. You’d assume that this was a no brainer issue. Of course you support the candidate that supports what your membership supports. Here is my hesitation: what if the candidate that would best represent our views and issues has zero chance of winning the election?
I remember one board candidate “Sunny” that had been a member of the Air Traffic Union and he was the perfect candidate from a Teacher Association view. The problem was he thought he could just get elected by spending $600 and giving a speech at the Rotary Club. There was another candidate running against “Sunny,” I’ll call him Claude. Claude was the owner of a funeral home, a republican, a Baptist Church deacon, a man who cared about education, but on Teacher Issues he scored so low we were looking at negative numbers. Claude had $40,000 in campaign funds, and tons of supporters and endorsements.
We were faced with this dilemma: do we vote for the candidate we believe in, or for the candidate we believe will win? Usually, when these things are discussed someone will say, “I don’t want to waste my vote.” What does that mean? If you vote for someone you think is best, knowing they can’t win, did you waste your vote? Is your vote more valuable if you vote for some person or some issue wins? How valuable is the win if you don’t believe in what you won.
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
James Bovard
Many feel that Ralph Nader caused the 2000 election to go to Bush because the more progressive Democrats voted for the Green Party candidate siphoning off votes that would have gone to the Democratic Party candidate for President. In the 2000 election there was a lot of discussion about wasting your vote voting for Nader because no one believed that Nader could win. Isn’t this a perfect example of a belief that voting for a winner is more important than voting your conscience. On the conservative side there are Republicans that claim voting for a Libertarian candidate for President is wasting your vote and stealing needed votes for Republicans who actually have a chance to win.
This is now an American dilemma. Some Republicans believe that government should be miniscule, if it is to exist at all. Some of these people believe that Medicare ought to be eliminated, but if they say what they really believe, they know it will be difficult for them to win the support of the electorate. Should they say what they believe, or should they say whatever would bring them a win? What good is a win, if you win something you don’t support. If the Medicare hating Republicans want to gain power and then use that power to dismantle Medicare aren’t they being deceptive, dishonest, and immoral? It seems odd that many of these radical Republicans are also
Progressive Democrats want Medicare for all, universal health care, single payer health care, but if they want to hold on to their win do they give up on what they believe and compromise?
How do you vote for a President, or a Senator? Should you, should anyone vote for the candidate you think will win? Everybody likes to be on the winning side, right? Do you vote for the loser you think is the better candidate?
A true believer might say, “Why not vote for the guy who -- although he " can't win " -- will at least leave you with a clear conscience about your vote?”
A pragmatic voter might say, “You must consider electability and vote for and support the candidate that is the lesser of two evils. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you obtain political advances? Little by little. You advance you political agenda one tiny baby-step at a time. You support winners and they owe you and are a teeny tiny bit more inclined to help you (ever so slightly) because you supported them in the election.
" Most of the time, your vote will affect an outcome only marginally, so you should vote your conscience. The exceptions occur in very close races. " Duke University professor Robert D. Behn
I wish we could all be honest. As the Town Hall Meetings have erupted I have heard pundits saying that the Republicans are making a mistake by not telling the radical whacko wing of their party to shut up. I disagree. Now part of my disagrees because I think the when the radicals make an ass out of themselves it causes moderate thinking American’s to move away from them. I disagree for another more important reason: If people really hold a belief, even one I hate, I still feel they have a right to their belief and no one should silence them because it hurts their Party Image. If people want zero government, zero taxes, zero regulations then they should have a right to tell the world what they believe. There should be a party that represents these extremist beliefs. The freedom of Speech demands that we allow exactly that: free speech. People should have a right to say what they think and they should have a political party that represents their beliefs.
I hope these odd beliefs fail to get a majority of the votes, but I believe they have a right to their beliefs. I wish we all would say what we think, and vote our conscience, and ignore polls and trends. Without honesty among our politicians and our citizenry, how can we discover the will of the people?
Article submitted Thursday, September 03, 2009 & read 589 times.
Leave Your Comments:
0-0-0-0-0-ADSO