The Way We Vote
How do we vote? Okay, okay. We pull a lever, fill in a bubble, punch a hole, touch a screen... but how do we pick where to pull, fill, punch, or touch?
A few years ago, early in 2004 in fact, a church friend of mine was definitely hoping for Pat Toomey to win over Arlen Specter in the PA Republican primary for senate. My friend said something that nearly infuriated me at the time-- "Specter is good with the economics issues and things like that, but I want Toomey to win because of the social issues. That's all that matters to me." Specter wasn't standing up saying that we need to constitutionally define marriage, make abortion a felony, and make sure that we get back to Jesus, so my friend didn't like him. I thought this was silly. Surely there are more important things? Why was my friend being "dumb Christian" and not realizing that there is so much more to government than social issues?
Fast forward two years to the next senate race, and I wanted Casey to wipe out Santorum. Why? I could live with Santorum, even with the whole treat the woman who randomly moves her head like she's fully functioning thing. But the man absolutely pissed me off. Why? He submitted a poorly written bill to basically silence National Weather Service scientists.
Did anyone just hear an operator saying "Kettle-- Pot, line 9"? Could I really be so shallow? Sure, I might vote with about ten issues in mind compared to my friend's three or four, but did I really put a man out to the curb because his bill that got nowhere broke my camel's back? My response-- Yes, and I have leftover campaign buttons to prove it.
So, I'm asking for the sake of discussion-- why do we choose the issues that we choose? We can't understand all the matters of a functioning world, how all of them fit together, and how any one person will react when facing the things we don't understand. We can and do make rational choices at the polls, but the way that perfectly rational people focus on different matters and come to make different votes tells me that our choices are rational only within what little bits we do think about and understand. So how do we pick those things that do affect our vote? Why do we choose those? Do we ignore or reject the things we do not consider? Is our choice affected primarily by our concept-- or lack of concept-- in what government does? Are we making our choices implicitly to drive government towards our ideal of what it should be exclusively, or only towards what we think it should be on the issues we select? Are we in it for ourselves, and for what we can get? Are we talking about the good of the country even though we're in it for ourselves?
I doubt you can speak for everyone (welcome an endowed chair in Political Science to any of you who can), so I guess you'll need to answer for yourself. Heck, if you can even answer for yourself then you're a step ahead of me. As much mildly conservative but mainly centrist trash talking as I do, I don't know why I do it.
A few years ago, early in 2004 in fact, a church friend of mine was definitely hoping for Pat Toomey to win over Arlen Specter in the PA Republican primary for senate. My friend said something that nearly infuriated me at the time-- "Specter is good with the economics issues and things like that, but I want Toomey to win because of the social issues. That's all that matters to me." Specter wasn't standing up saying that we need to constitutionally define marriage, make abortion a felony, and make sure that we get back to Jesus, so my friend didn't like him. I thought this was silly. Surely there are more important things? Why was my friend being "dumb Christian" and not realizing that there is so much more to government than social issues?
Fast forward two years to the next senate race, and I wanted Casey to wipe out Santorum. Why? I could live with Santorum, even with the whole treat the woman who randomly moves her head like she's fully functioning thing. But the man absolutely pissed me off. Why? He submitted a poorly written bill to basically silence National Weather Service scientists.
Did anyone just hear an operator saying "Kettle-- Pot, line 9"? Could I really be so shallow? Sure, I might vote with about ten issues in mind compared to my friend's three or four, but did I really put a man out to the curb because his bill that got nowhere broke my camel's back? My response-- Yes, and I have leftover campaign buttons to prove it.
So, I'm asking for the sake of discussion-- why do we choose the issues that we choose? We can't understand all the matters of a functioning world, how all of them fit together, and how any one person will react when facing the things we don't understand. We can and do make rational choices at the polls, but the way that perfectly rational people focus on different matters and come to make different votes tells me that our choices are rational only within what little bits we do think about and understand. So how do we pick those things that do affect our vote? Why do we choose those? Do we ignore or reject the things we do not consider? Is our choice affected primarily by our concept-- or lack of concept-- in what government does? Are we making our choices implicitly to drive government towards our ideal of what it should be exclusively, or only towards what we think it should be on the issues we select? Are we in it for ourselves, and for what we can get? Are we talking about the good of the country even though we're in it for ourselves?
I doubt you can speak for everyone (welcome an endowed chair in Political Science to any of you who can), so I guess you'll need to answer for yourself. Heck, if you can even answer for yourself then you're a step ahead of me. As much mildly conservative but mainly centrist trash talking as I do, I don't know why I do it.
posted by Nate at
05:30
3 Comments:
All very good points and questions as usual Nate. I know for myself that I think the real issue to what drives our choices is perhaps a sense of self preservation, or selfishness. It is not possible for any one person to fully understand ALL of the issues at work, so therefore, we focus on what is important to ourselves - perhaps issues like gun control, economic stability, health care, education, military deployment, etc. Once a a person decides their issues, they then choose a candidate who most embodies their ideals.
Here's another thought - I've said it before, but it bears repeating - too many people vote in the manner above but with a very very restricted sense of only a few issues and as such, their finite mentality and understanding leads them to make a simpleton choice.
Civic duty requires that people seek to BE INVOLVED in the political process. Reading about a candidate's position is fine, but finite. Researching a candidate's position from previous actions tell you more about the mentality and direction a candidate might lean on a particualr issue beyond what he/she/it/they say in the news.
Lastly, politics occurs at various levels - yes I do mean local, area, state, and National as well as the various subareas of the workplace, neighborhood, etc. Speaking to the first group, while it is not humanly possible to fully comprehend all the issues at the national level, it may be possible to understand a greater number of issues and their effects as you move down the heirarchy. As such, I think more people should seek to understand and be involved with politics at a local level first - an as understanding from experience increases, people will be able to make greater informed choices at the higer levels.
If you cant understand the county seat ledgers, what makes you think you'll fully appreciate the pork barel spending with numbers we wont see in our lifetime?
By
ProLPconserve, at Sun Feb 17, 12:44:00 PM GMT
I wonder if the number of independent voters has risen in the last 40 years as Americans have become more educated?
Democracy, as implemented in the American model, mandates a voting public with minimal political awareness: the ability to register to vote, and to know when there is an election. Compare this to Australia, where not voting is punishable by fine.
What I wonder is this: If you compare (Americans who do vote + Americans who don't vote) to (all Australians) to (American's who do vote), do any of those sets not fit in with the others? Or do individual preferences all come out in the statistical wash?
By
Anonymous, at Sun Feb 17, 05:39:00 PM GMT
prolp, self-preservation might be it.
And you bring up the locals! I have a rant about that...
I know a lot of people who do not vote in local elections at all. It's not important to them... until they need to get a zoning variance, or their property taxes double, or the school goes bonkers on them, or it takes three weeks too long to get a death certificate... and then all of the sudden they wonder how the heck those fruitcakes got into those offices. The answer, at least in this state (PA), is that 20 of the people in the township who cared voted for the fruitcakes and the other 19 who cared voted for someone else. 2200 other voters in the township, including many who end up wondering how the fruitcakes got into office, either stayed home because it was an odd numbered year or didn't push those buttons because they never heard of a deputy register of wills and don't know the difference between a sheriff and a constable.
That reminds me that I need to get to a long overdue post on "experience" and moving between different government offices.
Peter, the only thing I know for sure is that you'll find that the number of people who complain about the government is nearly 100% in all cases.
By
Nate, at Mon Feb 18, 10:09:00 AM GMT
Post a Comment
<< Home