Paraphrasing Karl Marx, Emma Goldman called U.S. elections the opiate of the masses. Instead of being involved daily in governance, we surrender our voices, using them only once every four years. Our vote is deemed sacred, private, the ultimate (and only) civic responsibility. As the one time most Americans are politically involved, it is interesting to analyze how we cast our votes.
Ninety-three FLASH QUIZes were emailed, thirty-eight responses were received. Most actually answered the question. The respondents were almost equally split between male and female. All respondents are US citizens. Most reside in the Midwest and Northeast. FLASH QUIZes sent overseas were routinely ignored. Only one Floridian responded (sore subject?). As well only two responses came from the Western US. Guess the energy shortage is having an effect on the response rate. I'm sure it has nothing to do with yours truly.
Of those responding, slightly more than half admitted to voting for a 3rd party candidate at some point in the past. Many of these indicated support for Ross Perot (although no one could agree on how to spell his name. Peroe? Pero?). One respondent even went so far as to say that she voted for Perot adding "didn't everyone?" On the contrary, another stated that she has never voted for a 3rd party candidate "especially not for Ross" (guess she didn't even want to take a stab at his last name). While another admitted to casting a ballot for Perot, but was relieved in hindsight that he didn't win. Thanks for researching your vote first.
Others who named candidates admitted to voting for Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, and John Hagelin. One admitted to voting for "two women I had never heard of." Again, thanks for being an informed voter. The Browne supporter said that he voted Libertarian because they stand for "less government, which means more drugs". It's nice to see good old-fashioned American values at the heart of each vote.
One respondent supported a 3rd party candidate then expressed embarrassment when she heard him speak. Which strikes me as a good reason to include 3rd party candidates in televised presidential debates. The debates would be more entertaining if nothing else. On the other hand, this last election cycle turned up two major party candidates who were painful to listen to as well.
Some respondents made threats to vote for 3rd parties in the future. One said "I intend to vote for the candidate from that party that believes the aliens are coming to save us from ourselves, because except for the alien thing, I agree with pretty much everything else they have to say." Another respondent told of a British party called the Monster Raving Loony Party. It seems they get about 4% of the vote every election "because they are so crazy it is fun to vote for them". Sounds like the kind of crazy fun that drove my ancestors out of Europe. Let's hope it stays overseas.
A respondent irate at the outcome of the last election said he would consider voting for a 3rd party candidate in the future "now that Clarence Thomas and Rhenquist have paired up as the Supreme Selectoral College". Funny, you forgot to mention Antonin Scalia (Sing "Don't Cry for Me, Judge Scalia" to the tune of Evita).
Two respondents confessed to influencing their parents to vote for John Anderson in 1980. That's wholesome, isn't it? Endless months of television, radio, and print ads, bumper stickers, press releases, rallies, mass mailings, and countless other attempts to sway a vote and it comes down to an eight-year-old in a voting booth. Politicos pay attention! This could be an untapped market. You want the soccer mom's vote? Go through her children. Start advertising on Nickelodeon and lunchroom milk cartons. Instead of big business and labor union contributors start a program for soliciting money from the under $5/week crowd.
One philosophical respondent commented, "considering that we are, for all practical purposes, operating under a one party system, it would be technically impossible to vote for a 3rd party candidate." A disagreeing respondent maintains that "all candidates are 3rd party candidates... that squishy middle of the road party that is too pathetic to take a real stand on any issues." Another opinion came from an actual 3rd party volunteer (yes! Someone actively in the streets working at the grass roots level. Someone without an ounce of cynicism in his soul, I'm sure). He included the lament "since corporations own the two major parties you never really heard much about the third party."
Of those who hadn't cast a ballot for a 3rd party candidate a variety of reasons were supplied. One was defiantly opposed to straying from the two major parties stating "I'm against voting for a 3rd party candidate at this point in political history AND I blame all those people who did for our current situation. It seems like a rather self-righteous, precious, indulgent way to make a 'statement' merely for the sake of making one when HELLO there are REAL things at stake.... don't get me started!!" Simmer down sister.
One calculating voter said that he hadn't voted for a 3rd party candidate in the past because he lived in a "swing-state" and usually went for the lesser of two evils. Honorable move. He went on though to confuse the FLASH QUIZer by adding that he now lives in a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic. He thought this year "they'd elect the president by actual count and cast my vote for Gore" too. I'm not sure why he thought the Constitution had changed. Maybe he figured after 200 years the Electoral College would expire automatically. I think it comes down to old habits dying hard. Actually I think he's a bit of an idealistic moron, but I don't want to be rude. The final word comes from a respondent who is also a Planned Parenthood employee. She reports that several donations in George W. Bush's name have been received at her PP office. News from the PP website indicates that the trend is nation-wide. We'll see if the President tries to use them as tax deductions next Spring.
© 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment