Political Blindness...

[crashhelmet]

aka Wasted Votes.

I was reading through a thread on a different board asking people to state their political affiliations and it reminded me of this hatred I have.

What I refer to as "Political Blindness" is when people vote for a party member only because of what their party is. The same goes for those that vote for measures/laws/questions/propositions strictly because their party says to vote that way.

People on this board were saying things like "I'm registered Y and always vote Y. If I can't, I'll vote for the X Party. I'll never vote for Z." I heard a lot of talk like this when I was a bartender, even though it's supposedly one of the "Forbidden 3."

In my opinion, voting like this is just as bad as not voting at all. They're wasted votes and the political system in this country will never be "fixed" until it stops.

Think for yourself. Take the time to find out what you can about the candidates and laws/measures/questions/propositions and vote for who/what YOU think is best.

CH

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I agree. This is why I refuse to have anything to with any political parties. I vote based on my research on the candidates and whether or not I like what they have to say.

What has happened is that the parties are now so polarized that one couldn't agree with the other if they said that water was wet. They fail to understand that while a person might have conservative leanings, they might agree with a liberal look at a situation.

I could never fit in with either party based on this as an example. I am pro-life AND pro-choice.

It's amazing how many people have the knee-jerk reaction stating "That's impossible". Especially if have party affiliations.

But for the seeming contradiction, if someone learned my reasonings, it becomes obvious that I'm not middle of the road. That I have a well thought out and reasoned train of logic behind that statement. I'm not going to go into those reasons in this thread (I'll post a new topic in the Politics Section) as I do not want to threadjack.

But that's how many in the world live. They have the ability to see both sides and can think of a compromise between them. Sadly those who do see the world like this, are not the ones running for office. Hell you can't run for office unless you are a dyed-in-the-wool [name of party] member and are 125% in adherence to the party line. Either that, or they're one of the far too numerous sheeple who as you point out Crash...blindly follow the party line because it saves them the effort of having to think for themselves.

"I am [party], hence if I just vote [party] I'm doing my American duty of voting and supporting the [party]."

It's a political MadLib some days.

[joe hx]

My grandmother was like this. If you were Republican, you were great. Let's say Senator Alpha is a Republican. If you'd ask my grandmother about him, she'd say he's great. Now let's say, for some reason, he switches parties to Democrat. Now if you'd ask my grandmother about the Senator, she'd say he's horrible.

Think for yourself. Take the time to find out what you can about the candidates and laws/measures/questions/propositions and vote for who/what YOU think is best.

For some reason I've always had trouble finding out exactly what I am going to be able to vote for. Every time I've voted there was some issue or position I had no idea was going to be on the ballot. I don't know why the government lets it be that difficult to find out.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

While judging solely on party affiliation is as stupid as judging solely on a single issue, I do think political parties are at the very least a useful tool to help like-minded politicians and citizens work together and as a baseline from which to consider each candidate. This in no way excuses the morons.

I've always kind of envisioned a voting machine that, instead of asking for what candidate, instead invited voters to choose one of two or more quotes expressing a position on a series of issues with no name or party affiliation displayed. When all of the questions were either passed or answered the voter would be shown, all at once, a breakdown of their answers for all the candidates. I suspect many people would be surprised. Of course, there would also be an option to skip the 'well who is it' part and automatically vote for whoever had the highest score, although with the knowledge at the least of what percent score the highest scoring candidate had (as in, you would know that the highest scorer got %50 and so is a fair bet to be 'the best'. If it's only 30% you might want the breakdown etc.)

Anyway, that would be nice. I think...

[HYHYBT]

For people, I try to know about the candidates before election day... but as joe hx says, there's always *something* on there I wasn't expecting, and often one not worth worrying about, in which case I'll either vote based on whether the incumbent seems to have been doing a good job or not or by party, or sometimes skip it entirely. For proposed amendments and that sort of thing, well, their content is shown on the ballot (something like "shall the constitution of Georgia be amended such that...") so if it's something I hadn't heard about I can read it there and decide.

I'm thinking about switching parties this year. It only really matters in that you can only vote in one primary, and as no Democrat in my area has a snowball's chance in a summer parking lot of winning, the Republican primary will almost certainly determine the winner of the general election. Funny, 20 years ago it was the other way around...

[jackfaire]

Or people vote on the only two commercials to make the air because the companies that didn't want the law to pass had money whereas the poor people the law protected did not.

[MadMike]

In my opinion, voting like this is just as bad as not voting at all.

I think it's worse than not voting at all, actually.

My grandma is like what you described. A few years ago, my wife, my son, and myself went out to dinner with her. My son was starting to understand politics, but didn't realize yet what a sensitive topic it can be. Somehow we got to talking about Bush, and my son wondered aloud why anyone would have voted for him. I happen to agree, but that wasn't the time or place for it.

Then my grandma responded that she voted for him, and my son, looking shocked, asked her why. Her answer was, "Because I'm a registered republican."

I didn't say it, but I thought that was an extremely stupid reason to vote for anyone. If she honestly thought he was the better person for the job, that's one thing. I happen to disagree, but if she had actually done the research and determined he was the better choice, then by all means she should have voted for him. But blindly voting for someone based on a label they're wearing is just plain thoughtless and idiotic.

I think they should get rid of the "straight party" choices on the ballot. If someone is going to vote, they should actually have to put some thought into it. Although I have to admit, if there was an "anti-incumbent" selection, I'd probably make frequent use of it.

[jackfaire]

Do you mean as far as in the general election not saying who is from what party? The primary election is to tell each individual party who the voters of that party want the party to back. Hence why you have to register a party to vote in that one. In the general election you vote for the guy you think is best for the job.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Obviously in a primary you would know that it was that party's primary and thus all the options are from that party but you would STILL IMO not be given names or images until after the choices are made.

[drunkenwildmage]

Something along this lines that also bugs piss out of me... Is people voting for series of candidates because some group or organization told them to.

Case in example: In the '04 (I think) election, while standing in line I saw someone hold a printed flier from a a organization that is known to influence politicians. What I saw on the flier was a list of politicians they endorse, and told their members to only vote for these people. I then saw this person. while standing at the voting booth, alternate looking at the flier and voting (Touch scene vote, couldn't see who/what they voted for, but could see most of their movement), after a minute or 2, flip the card over and do the same thing for the backside of the card...

[HYHYBT]

I've always kind of envisioned a voting machine that, instead of asking for what candidate, instead invited voters to choose one of two or more quotes expressing a position on a series of issues with no name or party affiliation displayed.

Too much room for the bias, intentional or otherwise, of whoever selects the quotes, and no way of judging the candidates' credibility.

I remember seeing something like what you describe for the 2008 presidential election. I recognized a couple of the quotes and knew just how much vital information was hidden in a single ellipsis (which normally should only be used to remove *irrelevant* words). Others seemed to have been selected to give the opposite impression to their stated positions, or to make them sound as much alike as possible. Something like that, done elsewhere, could be a useful tool in helping to decide who to vote for, but it has no business in a polling place.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The candidates themselves would provide blurbs especially for the process, with specific word limits and reviewed by a committee comprised of persons of various political positions. The committee decides if the blurb is straightforwardly worded and specific to the issue at hand ONLY.

[daleduke17]

The media has even caught political blindness. Why are the debates for the "big two" parties? Are the people who put on the debates afraid that if citizens hear from the Constitution, Libertarian, or Green parties the citizens wouldn't vote for a Republican or Democrat?

I won't vote for a Chicagoan in a Gubernatorial election, unless it is down to Chicagoan vs Chicagoan. Downstaters seem to be just a bit more rational, and understand there are more than 10 counties in Illinois.

[protege]

To me, it doesn't matter which political party someone belongs to. I tend to vote either way depending on the issues. But, I will *not* vote for a Democrat in Allegheny County elections. Why? Those idiots have been in power since the 1930s, and are largely responsible for the majority of the city and county's current fiscal problems.

[HYHYBT]

The candidates themselves would provide blurbs especially for the process, with specific word limits and reviewed by a committee comprised of persons of various political positions. The committee decides if the blurb is straightforwardly worded and specific to the issue at hand ONLY.

Ah, but a large part of the problem is the reduction of complex ideas (or what *ought* to be complex ideas) into blurbs in the first place.