I was talking to two friends tonight about the pending election. There is Dan who thinks voting is a waste of time. Then there is Harry who I widely consider to be a lot smarter than me, who admitted that will vote, but has no idea who he will vote for. So, there you have it, anyone that knows him that is a reader of my blog knows he is not a dumb person by any means.
I certainly have a pretty cynical view on politics. In fact one of my readers told me that they didn't have a clue where I stood since it seemed like I hated them both.
Now I have two questions for everyone.
1. Do you thinking people like Dan not voting is Un-American? Or do you think if he really doesn't trust either guy that he is wise to stay home next week. When I asked who he would rather see win he told me Bush. However, I am not sure I have a problem with him staying home. A guy I work with said he HATES Kerry.. HATES him..but is voting for him.
2. My 2nd question is...do you really think it makes a person dumb to not blindly trust either side? Is is strange my friend Harry hasn't made up his mind?
Well...I would like to endorse a candidate tonight.......I bet you have all been waiting for this..well I am voting for Nader.
FOOLED YOU!
8 DAYS BABY!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't think there's anything wrong with not voting, and I certainly wouldn't call it un-American. I didn't vote for President in 1996. I regret that decision now, but at the time I wasn't willing to endorse either candidate, so I sat out entirely as a protest. Millions of very intelligent and well-informed Americans do this every election. Apparently, so does Dan. ;-)
My question to Dan would be this: if he has a preference, why not vote? Is it because New Jersey is a forgone conclusion? If Dan lived in a swing state where either candidate might win, would Dan vote for Bush? If that's the case, then I agree, there is nothing wrong with Dan staying home. If Dan wouldn't vote regardless, that's another story. Not that there's anything wrong with not voting, but if you have a clear preference, and your state is up in the air, it seems like you're only hurting yourself (and your candidate) by not voting.
As for being undecided, I really can't get my brain around that one. I really don't understand how anyone can be undecided. I can even understand supporting Bush, but not knowing this late in the game baffles me? I mean, you're not going to get any new info on these guys between now and next Tuesday, so if you haven't made up your mind by now, I don't know what to tell you.
Of course it's not dumb to not blindly trust either side. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but you seem to be implying that anyone who isn't undecided is blindly trusting one side or another. I don't blindly trust Kerry. I think he'll be a better President than Bush. And it wouldn't change anything if I hated Kerry, HATED him. As long as I think he'll be better than Bush, I'm voting for him.
I think people get confused when they think about voting for President. To me, the best way to think about it is that you're voting for an outcome. There are two and only two situations that could result from this election... either Bush gets a second term, or Kerry becomes the 44th President. That's it. If you have a preference between those two results, you should vote. It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike either candidate, or whether you trust either one at all. If you have a preference, you should vote.
But it's up to you, and there's nothing wrong with staying home.
Dan had told me that both sides lie, and there is very little that we actually know that is going on so why vote at all.
He claims we just know spin and the medias take on events.
I can see why you think that way when it comes to voting. However, I think that is why we are going to be stuck with a two party system for a very long time.
Post a Comment