July 14, 201412 yr Yeah, no way its classy enough for the MSNBC crowd . I don't have to worry about studying the candidates, Dan. I just vote the way my old union says to vote.
July 14, 201412 yr Author And ultimately lead to less people voting (from both sides).That would be a good thing. If people are too ignorant to learn who the candidates are, including their party affiliations, then the rest of us would be better off if they stayed home.
July 14, 201412 yr Author I don't have to worry about studying the candidates, Dan. I just vote the way my old union says to vote.I have no trouble believing that to be the case.
July 15, 201412 yr That would be a good thing. If people are too ignorant to learn who the candidates are, including their party affiliations, then the rest of us would be better off if they stayed home. Maybe. As it is though, anywhere from 40-50% of the eligible population doesn't vote anyway. The idea that you have a role in the determination of the direction of the country (whether you and I believe that is the correct direction or not) by being able to elect your leaders is an important concept, whether you exercise it or not. Anything that leads to the possible reductions in voter turnout is a bad thing for the country.
July 15, 201412 yr I try to make sure that I am informed before I vote, but if for some obscure office I have no other information, party is at least a clue. I used to vote a lot of split tickets. With today's Republican party, I'm not sure how I could vote for anyone running as a Republican.
July 16, 201412 yr Author Maybe. As it is though, anywhere from 40-50% of the eligible population doesn't vote anyway. The idea that you have a role in the determination of the direction of the country (whether you and I believe that is the correct direction or not) by being able to elect your leaders is an important concept, whether you exercise it or not. Anything that leads to the possible reductions in voter turnout is a bad thing for the country.I disagree. I don't think lining up uninformed voters to vote for (D) or ® with no knowledge of the candidates benefits anybody. I confess that in local elections, where I may not know some of the candidates, I will vote for the Republican. However, in non-partisan races where the party affiliation is not given, I only vote when I am familiar enough with the candidates to have a real preference. I would study more or cast votes for fewer candidates if none of them had their party affiliations listed and I believe that many others would do the same.
July 16, 201412 yr I disagree. I don't think lining up uninformed voters to vote for (D) or ® with no knowledge of the candidates benefits anybody. I confess that in local elections, where I may not know some of the candidates, I will vote for the Republican. However, in non-partisan races where the party affiliation is not given, I only vote when I am familiar enough with the candidates to have a real preference. I would study more or cast votes for fewer candidates if none of them had their party affiliations listed and I believe that many others would do the same. Take out the party affiliations, and I still don't think people will do anymore to get informed. I think you'll end up seeing the person who is most recognizable getting the vote....in other words, the guy with the most money and best promotion machine. And maybe I'm wrong, as I think this plays a big part in elections anyway.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.