Talk about a senseless killing of trees! They are absolutely useless. Unless of course you are a one, two, or three issue voter and you don't really care what a person actually does in office and care only for their rhetoric.
And tell me why the Commissioner of Agriculture's or the Commissioner of the General Land Office's or the Railroad Commissioner's position on abortion, gambling, divorce reform, sex education, or marriage has anything to do with the office they may hold.
The overly simplistic information provided doesn't tell the whole story and it doesn't surprise me that some candidates don't respond. I wouldn't.
If the 'Voters Guide' is your main source of information about candidates, do us all a favor and DON'T VOTE!!!
Posts
10 comments:
Amen, Amen, Sista! :D
Do you trust a man, who is willing to break a covenant made before God and man, with a political office?
What facts do you think are relevant?
Would you support a man convicted of and pardoned of child abuse for any position?
What facts are relevant?
Is it capability in the job, that only concerns you? Or the possible further political ambitions of the winner of that job in the future?
What facts are relevant?
You cite facts you think irrelevant, but not any that you think to be relevant. You are never going to know the whole story, [er, in time for the election.]
What facts are relevant?
It only does you a favor, if they were going to vote against your position. Or do all people who read the voter's guide vote differently, than you?
What facts are relevant?
What kind of bigotry is exhibited by a desire to convince the "uneducated" not to vote?
Tragedy-
Do you trust a man, who is willing to break a covenant made before God and man, with a political office?
Not sure...what relevance this has to the post. At all. What covenant? How do the "non-partisan" voter guides cover this in any way?
What facts do you think are relevant?
What is at issue with mom's post is not what facts/issues are relevant, but rather the mode of raising awareness for them. The simple facts are that most people who use the voter guides to get their information- and only the voter guides- are single- or two-issue voters who only look at one or two of the slots (usually abortion/gay marriage) before deciding who they are going to vote for. That is messed up. It is not the way to preserve a republic.
Would you support a man convicted of and pardoned of child abuse for any position?
Once again, not sure how this is relevant, nor how it matters. So what? Once again, the voter guides don't cover that. You're drifting away from the issue at hand.
Is it capability in the job, that only concerns you? Or the possible further political ambitions of the winner of that job in the future?
Capability is the only thing that should matter. If someone isn't capable of upholding the Constitution and the public trust in the position they are running for, then they shouldn't get the job. Period.
You cite facts you think irrelevant, but not any that you think to be relevant. You are never going to know the whole story, [er, in time for the election.]
Once again, I think you're missing the point. The whole point of this post was that people _only_ read the voter guides, and don't bother to do research of their own. So of course they don't know the whole story! They haven't bothered to search it out!
It only does you a favor, if they were going to vote against your position. Or do all people who read the voter's guide vote differently, than you?
Most do. But that's not the issue. You are attempting to blow a rant against voter ignorance into an issue of bigotry.
What kind of bigotry is exhibited by a desire to convince the "uneducated" not to vote?
...The kind of bigotry that doesn't like uneducated people making a decision about my future?...
I'm only going to answer the last question.
I don't see any bigotry in that. If a person goes to the polls without any idea about the candidates or issues that are being voted on that person will not make a good choice. It is the duty of the voter to make an educated choice.
You are not opposed to people voting on limited information. What you oppose is that some people choose to vote based on information that you think is irrelevant. Most, if not all, of the canidates running are capable of performing the job they are running for. The decision of who is best for that job may be based only on the canidate's personal integrity or whether they look like or hold a belief similar to the voters.
To assert that people should not vote is heinous. It serves no good purpose. To explain why an educated vote excels an uneducated vote would be good. To explain how information educates a voter is useful.
Your rant is without benefit. The bigotry is: 1)It attacks those who think the information found in the voter's guide is of the utmost importance as being inferior to you, who base your vote on unstated information. 2)It states that those who believe differently than you should not vote.
Voting is the only power over government granted to the people. Liberty and responsibility are synonyms. If voters don't take responsibility in their vote, we loose liberty. We should encourage people to vote responsibly; not discourage people from voting, because they are irresponsible.
Not knowing does not guarantee a bad choice, and knowing does not guarantee a good choice. In fact good choices may not be available on this ballot.
Miss Liberty,
Yes. Your life has been and will continue to be influenced by the uneducated action(s) or inaction(s) of others. We don't have all knowledge and will never, here, possess it. Which makes the idea that your educated decision is better than a less educated decision a form of bigotry, that you should recognise as ultimately baseless.
Do you know whether your "good" choice will prove good, or another's "bad" choice will prove bad?
I don't care how they vote. I only care that they have taken the time to make an informed decision. I do not believe that the voter guides give enough information for anyone to make an informed choice. There is no bigotry in that.
I never said that my choice was 'good' and another's choice was 'bad'. I only want those who vote to know what and who they are voting for.
This is Joyful Momma's husband. - The root of the issue is how do we the people actually know the politicians. The fact of the matter is you can't know everything about a candidate. The Lord is the only one who knows their heart or what evilis lurking there.
We can look at their fruits but simply looking at a summary of their life doesn't show us their fruits. When one is condidered for a position at a company for a job, a resume is asked for. The company's job is too vet the resume and look at who is the most qualified for the position being filled. Every position in a company has different priorities as far as what is important for a particular position.
The problem is we can't keep up with every position in our government and the requirements for every position but we must try. We must personally vet the candidates. Any candidate that does not answer questions directly must not be considered. We need to start thinking locally. Their are always going to be really good candidates and really bad candidates. We need to elect candidates at the local and state level who will put pressure on the federal government to stop usurping the state's authority and uphold the constitution.
We need to be truthful to the people about how much we are taxed and any candidate who will try to balance or surplus the budget need not apply.
No. The root of the problem is supporting the self-irresponsibility of a citizen to not vote, even though they were irresponsible in other areas they should be responsible in.
You are a parent. You know that children rarely become more responsible, if responsibility is continually denied them. What causes you to think citizens are different?
We need every citizen to vote responsibly. Direct suppression of voting [or indirect suppression such as the last sentence in the post] negatively impacts our ability to combat an overreaching government. Every citizen's responsibility is necessary.
"any candidate who will [not] try to balance or surplus the budget need not apply.
Is this what you meant to say?
I kept thinking I just don't agree with your position at all. I agreed with everything and then not at all. Why would anyone be opposed to a surplus budget or at the very least a balanced budget? But then it occured to me, perhaps he intended a "not" in there. If not, why not?
We are not trying to supress the vote. An irresponsible vote without knowledge of the candidate to back it up is just as wasteful and silly as someone who doesn't vote at all. (In any case, it's questionable whether one's vote for many things matters in any case, but whatever.)
I think Americans have become so enamored with this concept of "voting" that we have lost sight of the true nature of our system. But that's a big, long rant I won't get into right now.
And I think dad did intend to put a "not" in there, 'else it doesn't make sense, LOL. He types slow. ^.^ (Love you dad!)
People, who don't vote, don't care. People, who don't care, won't vote.
People, who vote, care at very least a tiny bit.
Concern causes action: Voters are the people who call and send letters to elected officials with concerns regarding what they are doing and how they are handling their position. Voters hold elected officials accountable.
When elected officials are not held accountable by the people they represent, they are left to their own integrity which is truly tested all the time they hold a position of authority. When held acountable, they at least have a certain amount of support for their integrity in knowing the calls and letters coming if they don't do as they should.
So while an uninformed vote doesn't help in getting anything accomplished, necessarily. It creates at least a small sense of responsibility in the voter: ownership of their vote, concern for their country. More voters mean more citizens taking responsibility for the activities of their government.
In this sense a totally senseless and uninformed vote is not as wasted as the uncast vote.
Post a Comment