A great visit with friends, discussing the upcoming primary and elections. We talked about local and national candidates, and wrestled with the temptation to vote for a winning candidate rather than voting on principle even if you know your candidate will lose. 'A half a loaf is better than none' can sound very reasonable, especially when you know that their opponent would be worse.
No candidate is perfect, they are all human. Some share my convictions, some only mouth the words, and some clearly see the role of government differently than I do. My husband and I decided last year to make a 'no incumbent' voting pledge. This grew out of our frustration with the lack of term limits; if politicians won't willingly return to the private sector to live under the laws they pass, then we will do what we can to force them into retirement.
If I set aside incumbent candidates, I still need to decide which other candidates to support. Our discussion today centered on races where the candidate that we support in principle likely doesn't have the chops to win the general election. This is where I think the concept of 2-party politics does us all a disservice. Rather than choosing the best candidate, we begin to think in terms of whom best serves our party. We begin to think of the party over the country, our own alliances instead of putting the Republic first.
Maybe I am a hopeless idealist, but I would rather vote for someone I want to represent me, than settle for someone popular enough to win. I know this leads to split votes, or victory for the person I like least, but my vote matters to me. If I give my vote to a party rather than to my country, I have diminished its value and my privilege as a citizen.
What do you think? How do you make the decision for whom to cast your vote?
I wish I knew what happend to my last comment I posted here. It was really articualte and insightful. Now, I'm just hoping you get to see that I actually am savy enough to post a comment to a blog.
ReplyDeleteGBAKY