My Vote
I still don’t know which presidential candidate I’m voting for this afternoon in the Ohio primaries. Here’s the deal:
- For various reasons, I am certain that Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee would be terrible choices for our country.
- Romney had some appeal, but it was clear early on that he’s shooting for the rebound in 2012.
- I believe that Paul has a voice that must be heard, especially in the we-like-sheep region of Cincinnati, Ohio … and I had originally intended to cast my primary vote his way as a stand for conservatism and freedom. But …
- I didn’t expect the democratic primaries to be so close in Ohio … so now I’m wondering if my vote would be better used to support Obama, my likely candidate in the general election.
But here’s the bigger picture. When I go to my polling location, I must choose which ballot to fill out. If I use the “Issues Only” ballot, I will not have the opportunity to vote for any federal, state, or local officials. If I grab the Republican or Democratic ballot, I will be limited to only candidates from the party that I choose. So I cannot cast a vote for a Democratic president and Republican congressman … I apparently don’t have that freedom in the state of Ohio.
Moreover, the ballot that I choose to use will determine my party affiliation. So if I vote for Obama tonight, I will (for the next four years) be spammed as a democrat, counted in their statistics, and pigeonholed into opportunities that are designed for them. Likewise if I vote for Paul. At least I’ll still be able to choose whichever candidates I want in the general election.
I’m actually thinking about flipping the script, punching Obama’s chad out tonight and reserving my general election vote for Paul … but I need to do some more research first. What do you think?
March 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm EST
If you think that Obama would be a better choice for our country than Clinton, then I would encourage you to vote for him today. For obvious (mathematical) reasons, Paul will not be the official Republican nominee in any case, whether you vote for him or not. With the race so close, a vote for Obama will matter and, if you’re going on a 50/50 chance with the American voting public, Obama v. McCain could be more beneficial for our country than Clinton v. McCain. Just my thoughts as an Obama supporter.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm EST
My thoughts exactly. But a vote for Paul wouldn’t be pragmatic or mathematical … it would be ideological and, in my mind, patriotic.
I also neglected to mention that the Democratic primaries are not in a winner-take-all format like they are for the Republicans in Ohio … delegates are awarded proportionally. So if the race is tight, the resulting delegation will reflect that and be much more representative of the district. In other words, my vote on a Democratic ballot wouldn’t be as (disproportionately) influential as it might seem. And that’s mostly good (until you start bringing in loopholes like “super delegates”).
My first trip to the polling station today was fruitless … things are kinda screwed up because of the many times I’ve moved in recent years. So I’m about to make my second trip in a few minutes to sort out the provisional ballot/voter registration stuff. Seriously … this is about as tedious as possible!
March 5th, 2008 at 12:11 am EST
Dood … CNN picked up my post this morning and linked it on their main election website (click on “From the Blogs” at the bottom).
Lots of new faces have been browsing these pages today … kick off those shoes and stay a while, my friends!
March 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pm EST
Lance - I’ve been pretty disenchanted with the choices too, and have considered that I might wind up supporting Obama come November. But, the big problem I have with him is his far-left pro-choice stance is repulsive to me. I just find it impossible to want to cast a ballot for anyone who is for allowing partial-birth abortions. While I got my 2 supremes (albiet at a huge cost) during the Bush era, I find myself still wary about putting a pro-choice politician in the only seat in the nation that gets to appoint people to the Supreme Court. Is Obama the most inspired, fresh, invigorating candidate running? Yeah, probably. Is he electable? Yeah probably. Is he good for America… well, better than Bush doesn’t cut it. I need someone who is truly *good* for America, and haven’t found him/her/it. Flawed system? Yup.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pm EST
As a pro-lifer, though, you’ve got to look at the bigger picture … it’s not just about the baby in the womb, it’s also about the quality of life all over our country and world. As repulsive as legalized murder is to me, I am beginning to become even more concerned about atrocities that are not popular political issues. Many of those things are what put people in the terrible position of needing to consider abortion in the first place.
Just a thought.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:17 am EST
omg. i mean… really? people are still voting based on one or two hot button issues? as lance said, big picture, people. big picture. no one is perfect. and if i had to search for a perfect person… it certainly would NOT be in the political arena. i’m just saying.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am EST
So, if our vote is so important, why hasn’t anyone come up with a way to make voting more accessible? (I can bank online, why not vote?)
I agree, you have to look at the ‘big picture’ when choosing your candidate. I disagree with the notion that abortion (including partial birth abortion) is merely a “hot button issue.” I think a candidate’s stance on that issue speaks to their sense of morality. Something that IS a big picture indicator.
I also wish politicians didn’t feel the need to stick to ‘popular’ issues and would address atrocities that are ‘unpopular’ but ones that need attention!
March 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm EST
online voting would make it LESS accessible to most people… not MORE. not everyone has access to the internet. besides, there is no way that using miscellaneous internet tubes would be secure. political people are crazy. hackers are crazy. and, oh, ever the twain WOULD meet.
i hesitate to ask what we think of the current president’s sense of morality…
random: my fantasy is for a presidential candidate to name a running mate from the opposite party. the whole of american politics would implode into itself instantaneously.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm EST
How could it possibly make it less accessible? All public libraries, schools, churches, airports, and even private businesses could then become polling places! There are plenty of secure websites out there … building another wouldn’t be that difficult. And what better way to inject some life into our political involvement than to man these places with young, tech-savvy, politically-conscious people. It’s a win-win-win!
I think our current President has a very strong sense of morality. Unfortunately, it’s also extremely narrow.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:07 pm EST
Tsk, tsk. You young people are bringing so much shallowness to the political discussion, as though you had never studied how the electoral process works.
1. Primaries belong to the members of the political party holding the primary. In some states they don’t have a primary, they have a caucus. The party members get together and decide how they will vote at the national convention. The garden variety, undeclared voter has no say in the process. If he wants a say, he has two choices : either join the party and come to the caucus, or else find a candidate to run and get enough petition signatures to place the candidate on the ballot. Simple. In Ohio, you can file a change of party at the poling place and vote for the candidate of that party that you like, but — you must be a member of the party whose ballot you vote, because the primary is the party’s party-time.
2. Extremely narrow sense of morality is nothing new. It is a matter of saying yes or no — only two choices allowed. I once read something about the way to destruction being broad, but the road to life being narrow. Ever wonder if that is still true after all these centuries?
3. Given that none of the choices offered are optimal, it becomes time to turn the gaze inward. Fixing the “atrocities that are not popular political issues” starts with the individual. The atrocities exist because they are part of the American life-style. If every American lived the ideals of Psalms 1 and 15, it would not matter who the dog at the top of the heap was. America is NOT a Christian nation, and cannot be until the Christians start living like Christians. It isn’t, because they don’t. They don’t, because they have recreated God in their own image. God is NOT an American.
4. As of December 2007, Pew Research determined that about 23% of Americans had no access to the Internet, but over half the people that did use the Internet did so from their local library. The 23% was comprised mainly of the very poor and the elderly. Will you give people the choice to vote either way? If so, what happens when they show up to vote in person and the list says they already voted on-line — will they be happy voting provisionally? How will you prove it was really them voting on-line?
5. In this county less than half the registered voters voted. Of those who voted, 18% were registered as Donkeys, 9% as Dumbos, and 73% as Non-partisan. The ballot totals came out 75% Donkeys, 23% Dumbos, and only 2% Issues-only. This tells me that about 3/4 of the voters don’t care who is in office as long as they are promised something for nothing.
6. If you think you can fix this, run for office yourself.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm EST
Willy - I need to respond to one thing you said - “Primaries belong to the members of the political party holding the primary”. That is the general idea, but some states like Ohio and Texas have *open* primaries, which means that you don’t have to change your party affiliation to vote for the other party’s primary. In fact, there was literature on my front door from both Billary and Obama reminding me, a registered Republican, that I can vote in either primary (but not both).
March 7th, 2008 at 12:41 am EST
Sorry, mattmc, but not true. In Ohio, you must declare your party affiliation by requesting that party’s ballot. If you change from one affiliation to the other (Donkey to Dumbo or Dumbo to Donkey), Form 10-W must be filled out, signed, and accepted by the election judges before the ballot is issued. If you go from Non-partisan to either animal clan, you do not need to file the Form 10-W. Under Ohio election law, poll workers are NOT allowed to issue a ballot to a changeling unless the 10-W is signed.
The form 10-W requires that you affirm that you now hold to the principles of the party you are joining. It states :
“At the Primary Election held on the _____________ day of __________________________, ______________.
I, ______________________________________, of ________________________________________________
(Name of Elector) (Street and Number, if any, or Rural Route and Number)
___________________________________, ________________________________, hereby state, under
(City, Village or Post Office)
penalty of election falsification, that I desire to be affiliated with and that I support the principles of the
___________________________ Party and wish to cast a ballot in the party’s primary election this year. ”
It is a 5th degree felony to commit election falsification.
I’m a poll worker — an election judge. I got to see lots of liars Tuesday. This is NOT a Christian nation.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:59 am EST
Maybe I should just stay in Mexico.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:02 am EST
Questionable stat. I’d like to know how they defined ‘access’, especially considering what Lance brought up - there are internet portals all over the place!
Online voting certainly wouldn’t be the ONLY solution to more voter participation, but it certainly would be a large step in the right direction. (You could still have polling places in all the usual spots - manned with computers of course.)
Oh, and since voting would be online, the ‘polls’ could stay open 24, 48, 72 hours… isn’t that a novel idea!
March 7th, 2008 at 8:42 am EST
keep in mind that we are all thinking like middle-class college educated americans who have grown up with the internet. stop and think for JUST one moment about people who are not at all familiar with computers… i mean they ARE out there. i live in one of the poorest counties in ohio… trust me, they ARE out there. just because an internet portal exists does not mean it is “accessible”. just because there is/are “only” 23% of them does NOT mean we can marginalize them, and it certainly doesn’t mean we are allowed to have a mentality of “they should just buck up and learn”. voting by computer? that would be extremely intimidating for many people, can you even understand that? and the people who would be intimidated are, i am thinking, precisely the people who need to have their voices heard.
i think online voting will be feasible in the future. but at present, i believe it would just be unfair.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:49 am EST
also keep in mind that we are all thinking like honest, upstanding people who wouldn’t think about rigging the voting process.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:34 am EST
Um, Willy, I specifically consulted the Hamilton County League of Women (yep) Voters website, an official at the Hamilton County Board of Elections, and the workers at the polling place about changing parties. All gave the same answer … all I had to do was pick up and fill out the ballot I wanted at the polling place, no extra forms or applications involved. Maybe Hamilton County doesn’t require a 10-W form, I don’t know … or maybe they were all wrong and my vote didn’t count. If so, it really highlights the need to move away from depending on paper and people (lots of variables there) for accuracy and availability.
Can you please provide the link for the study you’re referring to? I find this extremely questionable, given the small number of computers available in the public libraries I frequent … and the other stats I’ve researched (as a digital media teacher) completely contradict that statement. This Pew study, which focused on the broadband access of 2,200 Americans (not very many), clearly states:
Combining the first two stats (.47/.7) shows us that according to Pew, 67.1% of all adult Americans have an Internet connection at home. Subtracting this from the third shows that 4% use other sources (2% at work and 2% in other places, like libraries). We can clearly conclude, from this information, that 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
And I firmly believe that having the vote online would NOT be any more intimidating or inaccessible than the current situation … heck, I was intimidated by the smell of geriatrics in the air at my polling place, but that’s not going to stop me from voting. As Steve said, the polling places that currently exist would have computers fired up and ready to go. In my opinion, filling out a scantron is much more complicated than clicking a mouse button (or poking a touch screen).
If you can turn on your oven, you can vote online.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pm EST
The Pew Research article :
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/677/in-search-of-solutions
You aren’t likely to move away from paper any time soon with all the lawyers wanting paper trails for their lawsuits. You will also have some people refusing to vote with a machine, and filing suit to get a paper ballot.
Get away from depending on people? You think the computers are going to do it by themselves? Wherever you need IT experts, you will have problems. Murphy is immutable.
Lance, as to the various people you spoke with about the 10-W — it is part of Ohio election law. I think that it is largely ignored, even by poll workers. Our precinct ran out of the forms, we took ALL the forms from the adjacent precinct (which up to that point had not had even one of them completed), and then had to run off another 20 copies. Just because poll workers don’t follow the law doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
I had to laugh at one point because an Obama campaign worker had to be told to leave the polling place. She seemed oblivious to the fact that it is illegal to campaign within 100 feet of the polling place. She came back later, minus the campaign materials. She was intent on trying to make sure that nobody slipped in extra votes for Hillary, but the number of people jumping party lines and going Donkey from Non-partisan were causing her fits.
Maybe Hamilton County has seceded from the rest of Ohio? Oh — I forgot — they have some other issues down there with their county government …
… but not really any different from anywhere else, I guess. Vote early and often, they say.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm EST
The study you linked to directly contradicts the statistics you quoted. And if poll workers (and even the Board of Elections) are ignoring Ohio election law, that’s yet another reason why our analog system needs revamped.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pm EST
“A major focus was on those with no access to the internet (23% of the population) and those with only dial-up access (13% of the population). ”
That contradicts what I wrote? You have to read the whole article.
Computers won’t improve the morality of the general population. I’ll repeat — if the Christians lived like Christians it would have an impact on our culture, but the Christians try to “blend in” and turn the salt to sugar, which only results in a moldy society.
The point under discussion is the fact that switching to on-line voting could disenfranchise a large number of people. What OS will drive the voting machine? Just try accessing parts of the State of Ohio or Summit County websites with Safari if you want an exercise in disenfranchisement. That really has no bearing on whether or not people will cheat.
I’m in mdog’s corner on that one.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:25 am EST
Yes, I read the whole article … and that stat about library use is nowhere in it. In fact, the study finds the exact opposite to be true (the wealthier and more educated, the ones with Internet access at home, are the prevalent users of the Internet at the public library).
And I would argue that more people are disenfranchised by the current system, by far, than those that would be disenfranchised by an effective and efficient system. I guarantee that the numbers would speak for themselves!
March 8th, 2008 at 8:41 pm EST
I am also with mdog. Can you imagine the corruption if Billary got in touch with all their cronies in China and hired these guys to do her bidding? (And don’t think she wouldn’t try!)
Willy, in 2004 MoveOn.org had a tent set up at my polling place handing out literature and campaigning. I went over and challenged them, and they took out a tape measure and measured the distance to the door for me. 151 feet. (I think that was the number, it was 1 ft further than the law said.) I counter challenged that they were in the PARKING LOT of the polling place on the same property (like they were gonna move their tent for me anyhow…) and that they should be 151 ft from the property, not the door. But they said that their interpretation of the distance from the polling place was correct. How do you technically define where they should have measured from? Isn’t that like trying to argue about what the definition of “is” is???
March 9th, 2008 at 1:32 am EST
If you can get to a polling place to vote, you can get to somewhere with internet to vote.
If you define ‘access’ as “I don’t have to lift a finger or produce any effort at all” to get to the internet, well then maybe you could say there are that many people with ‘no access’ in America. Personally, I don’t buy it.
If you live in a city, any city, you have access. If you go to school, any school, you have access. If you have a job - just about any job, you have access. If you live in a retirement center, any retirement center, you have access. Who are these people with no access to the internet, yet who DO have access to a polling place?
It’s a moot point anyway if you don’t eliminate the polling stations for the next few elections. Let the ‘no access’ people and the ‘I’m scared of the internet’ people go to the polling places. Let the rest of us, those with jobs, with little kids, with no time to stand in line at a polling place for hours, vote online!
Why wouldn’t you want a system that is in-line with our current level of modern technology and that allows more involvement in our democratic elections?
I’ve said it before, if I can bank online securely, then there is a way to securely vote online.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:54 am EST
Willy - I just read the report. When you said’
You were quoting the first stat out of context, seemingly to make your point stronger. And the second stat is simply not in the report - at least not the way you characterize it.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:18 am EST
The online voting would have helped me this time. I had planned on voting March 4, but then got asked to go out of the country on business at the last second. I was way too busy (packing and getting work done I needed on the trip, and MBA homework and midterms completed and turned in before leaving) so I didn’t have time to figure out how to absentee vote and get it done in the 3 days before the trip.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm EST
I’m not a one-issue voter but I do believe that how a candidate votes on partial-birth abortion is a good litmus test of how that individual will vote on a host of other moral issues. I agree, there is not a shining candidate to support! We are forced to choose the lesser of 2 evils.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am EST
On-line voting:
I believe that going to a poll site and casting your ballot should remain the only way to vote(with the exception of absentee ballots). We manage to get everywhere else we want to go- why is going to your poll site and voting an inconvenience. As for those without transpotation, one call to any of the major politcal parties or calling the office of a candidate will provide a ride to the polling site. Is should be an honor & a privilege to make time in your day & vote. Also, I believe the opportunity for voter fraud would be more available on on-line voting. I know you techies will say that it would be possible to make voter fraud very difficult, but just think what an unscrupulous candidate could do with unlimited financial resources could do to hack into an on-line voting system. Also, remember that politicians would be administrating on-line voting- what a nightmare that could turn in to.
As for using pro-life and pro abortion(I so dislike using pro choice as a term for the pro abortionists. The only person having a choice is the mother. The baby has no choice to determine whether it is going to live or die.) as a limus test for voting, I can think of no more important test for my vote. Abortion are the killing of the unborn & a scourge on our nation. As Christians, we can have no other option but to be firmly againist abortion in any manner. Scripture is crystal clear concerning this. My fear is that the Lord will not tarry to deliver His justified wrath on our nation for allowing the killing of so many innocent lives. No other “litmus test can be as important as the protection of the unborn.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:22 pm EST
Lynn - HP gave a great, real-life, example of why online voting would be a great improvement to America’s democracy.
Many of us who would benefit from such a system are not lazy or afraid of inconvenience as you imply. Actually, in many cases, the opposite is true - we are very hard workers and we go to great lengths to serve God, our family, and our jobs.
You lifestyle and geographic location may mean that for you, making it to a polling station, waiting in line, and casting your vote, is a realistic thing to do. But we don’t all share your lifestyle and geographic location - so why shut out the rest of us based on your individual circumstances?
March 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm EST
I think at some point in time us Gen X’ers (Y’ers?) are going to insist on having online voting available as an option. Everything else in my life moves very quickly and compactly, I NEVER go to a bank branch to stand in a line, I do it all online, and its SAFE. (I HATE it when somebody writes me a check, how archaic! Forces me to waste $0.41 to mail it to my bank and my time to fill out an envelope and deposit slip, or waste gas and time at the drive up window! Ever heard of PayPal and the like???) I don’t even need to Christmas shop in long lines, its all available at the click of my mouse, where I can price shop in my sweats and slippers.
I agree with Steve, wanting this doesn’t make me lazy, it makes me a multi-tasker who is so busy being a good father, husband, MBA student, and manager at my workplace that being able to vote in a matter of minutes vs. up to an hour would only encourage me to vote. IMAGINE how much voter turnout would increase if you could vote online if done prior to date X, and if you did your name would print as having already voted at the polling location (to ensure you don’t go there and vote again). It could be done, I’m sure. Though I question the integrity of politicians as well and would also be concerned about a technical hijacking of the results…