Voters across our community, state and nation will have their say today. The decisions that are made in the polling places, for all levels of government, will have lasting consequences. So choose wisely.
Over the past week, we’ve identified the candidates and referendums we support and the reasons for our choices. We’ve made those decisions on a race-by-race basis, picking a mix of Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the process. We suggest that you also consider each candidate on his or her own merits, regardless of party.
But if you do vote a straight-party ticket, remember that you must still make individual decisions to have your voice heard in the nonpartisan school-board elections and those referendum questions.
And regardless of whether you agree with our arguments or follow our advice, exercise your self-governing right ”” and obligation ”” by casting informed votes.
A review of our endorsements….
“Voters across our community, state and nation will have their say today.”
What use is “having your say.” It’s either going to be drowned out by the majority, or else you are the majority, and you will be drowning out the minority. Democracy should be viewed for what it is, an exploitative, more damaging process than gambling. At least in gambling you stand a chance of walking away with the big prize. In voting you walk away having attempted to exploit your neighbors.
There is nothing “exploitative” about voting for candidates you believe will be best to run the country. It’s not an act “against” a neighbor. Most voters know that, as evidenced by our friends who continue to be our friends even when we vote for opposing candidates. I don’t want to see the government that would replace a government in which citizens choose their leaders, however flawed the process may currently be. I don’t want to see it, because I’ve seen too many historical and present-day alternatives.
Sherri, you say that voting is not “exploitative” of dissenters. Let’s say you are against universalized healthcare–both as a moral and practical violation of personal beliefs. What right do I have to come along and demand that you pay for this abomination? (Yes, having lived in countries that provide “free” healthcare, I call it such.)
And if you are instead a conservative who demands that gay parents’ tax money should be taken and spent against their wishes on heterosexual families, how is that not exploitative of gays?
Unfortunately the only historical alternatives to democracy you have seen are greater exploitations of the individual. By similar comparisons Hitler who “only” murdered 6 million is a paragon of peace compared to Stalin’s 30-100 million.
#1 & #3, you are correct that a true democracy is a very brutal form of government. That is why our forefathers set up our government as a representative republic. Our states have two senators, regardless of size, who hold office for 6 years, not 2. Our President has veto power. Our minority in Congress can filibuster bills to keep them from coming to a vote, and it takes a 2/3 majority to stop that filibuster and a 2/3 majority to overturn a Presdential veto. Our elected President (for 4 years, but a maximum of 8 years) appoints Supreme Court Justices, who then can undo laws of a runaway Congress. In summary, we have checks a balances in our government that a democracy does not have. So, while I agree with some of your statements, your arguments are not applicable to our government or our elections.
Billy, what you have said is accurate. I have in the past tried to vote for the person I felt would best serve the people, so I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. Today, however, I felt the need to vote for the Republican candidate for Senate even though I liked the Democrat better. The prospect of a leftist/socialist president teamed with a filibuster-proof congress guided by Reeds and Pelosi give me great fears for the future of this country.
the only historical alternatives to democracy you have seen are greater exploitations of the individual. By similar comparisons Hitler who “only†murdered 6 million is a paragon of peace compared to Stalin’s 30-100 million.
And an assorted number of queens, kings and socialist/communist governments, none of which has struck me as equitable as what we have, however flawed it may be.
A representative democracy is not exploitative – it is the means by which people agree to let themselves be mutually governed. It’s not a government in which every person gets to have his way about every single thing that effects his life – but it is a form of government which enables citizens and their representatives to reach compromises and go forward. It also allows citizens who feel exploited to work for change, as many have over the 200+ years of this country’s existence. If you don’t like nationalized health, you are perfectly free to use every legal means at your disposal to see that such a program is not put in place, and if it’s put into place, you can continue to work against its continued use.
blockquote] And an assorted number of queens, kings and socialist/communist governments, none of which has struck me as equitable as what we have, however flawed it may be.[/blockquote]
By that token we would still be living under slavery in the most “equitable” country in the world. I would think that wrong is wrong, and where encountered needs to be acknowledged as such?
[blockquote]A representative democracy is not exploitative – it is the means by which people agree to let themselves be mutually governed. [/blockquote]
And those who don’t consent? Well we’ll just jail them for violating laws to which they never gave their assent?
“It also allows citizens who feel exploited to work for change.”
Don’t you think that’s a tad optimistic? Why is it that politicians are always the wealthiest people or those that come from the most influential political families? Or, put another way, what change have you brought about in this country? Why have YOU not for example illegalized abortion yet? Lazy, or powerless?
Sherri, I hate to break it to you, but you will NEVER bring about any national political change in the country. The issues that affect you and I are outside our power sphere. The only change you will ever accomplish will be on an individual by individual basis. Unsurprisingly that is the only change worth accomplishing because it must be by nature persuasive and non-exploitative.
By that token we would still be living under slavery in the most “equitable†country in the world. I would think that wrong is wrong, and where encountered needs to be acknowledged as such?
I don’t read you at all on this. First, where did I say we should not work fpr improvement of the government we have? The fact that we don’t live under slavery today is because people fought a war to change that and, prior to that, people worked to change minds, which in effect ultimately changed the way the country is run – i.e., slavery was abolished.
And those who don’t consent? Well we’ll just jail them for violating laws to which they never gave their assent?
We vote for our representatives – or we vote to replace them. We let them know where we stand if we care enough. And if we break the law of the land, we go to jail. But we do play a role in what the law of the land is.
r, put another way, what change have you brought about in this country? Why have YOU not for example illegalized abortion yet? Lazy, or powerless?
Well, let’s see, I played a role in making a major university and a community college change their programs and courses of study to make them accessible to disabled students. I helped prevent the obscene over development of an island owned by the state in which I live. I helped save another bit of natural heritage for future generations. I kept a public utility from cheating an Hispanic citizen and also stopped a public authority from discriminating against an Hispanic family – individual cases that brought about changes in which the utility and the authority treat citizens. Actually, when I think about it, there is a decent little list of changes I’ve had a small role in bringing about. Did you think change was supposed to be instant? That as soon as you dislike something, the government should immediately stop it? That you should get to decide everything by yourself?
you will NEVER bring about any national political change in the country
Pardon me, but that statement seems naive. Me, personally, change the nation? No, I don’t think so. But me with others who believe as I do, yes. Me and whoever I can convince of the rightness of my position, yes.
What form of government do you want to see? Since you’ve made it clear that you don’t want the one we have, what’s the positive side? What do you want in its place?
[i]There is nothing “exploitative†about voting for candidates you believe will be best to run the country.[/i]
Except in the last few elections, it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Although in this case that wasn’t the choice that got voted in.