If you don't know, don't vote

Every election season I, at least on some level, advocate that some people don't vote. This may seem bizarre, even unpatriotic, maybe even like voter fraud, but hang in there, I've got reasons, and fraud's got nothing to do with it.

I'm not saying you shouldn't educate yourself and exercise your civic rights. Far, far from it. Ideally, everyone in a society would read up on the candidates and the issues and vote accordingly. In fact, while I don't necessarily support it in the US, I'm a bit of a fan of the Australian mandatory vote. I wish the American public would vote in larger numbers than they do. I am fully in favor of get out the vote efforts.

But here's where it gets a little nuanced. If you don't have time to learn about a candidate or an issue and go to the polls to vote for candidates just because you've heard of them, that's not responsible voting, and it doesn't advance the public interest. Equally, voting a straight ticket because you think by default one party will always act in your interest is also not really how the system is meant to work.

So what are your options? If you feel that voting is your civic duty, by all means go to the polls. But whether you don't know the candidates or issues or think you'll end up voting a straight ticket anyway, read the ballot and vote on each one. If you come to a race where you don't know the candidates, don't vote in that election. It's your right as a voter to do so and as far as I'm aware, there are no municipalities in the US that will invalidate your ballot simply because you left a race blank.

This is not the same as a protest vote (contrary to the wikipedia page on blank ticket voting). A protest vote specifically is designed to get the attention of politicians to say 'I don't like any of you.' Blank voting simply says, I care enough to show up at the polls, but I don't know enough about you or your opponent(s) to make an informed decision.

Take, for example, Alaska. Say I'm fairly independent, but generally like the Republican party, but I'm not so much on the Tea Party platform. I see Joe Miller is a Republican. I see Mark Begich is a Democrat. Perhaps I know Joe Miller is a Tea Party candidate, but I don't know a lot more than that. So I play the odds and vote for Miller because odds are, he'll be a better fit than Begich. And if I don't know the candidates, that's what I'm doing, playing the odds. What I don't know is that Senator Murkowski, who is a much better fit for me than Miller or Begich, is running a write-in campaign. My vote for Miller isn't just a vote against Begich, it's also a vote against Murkowski, and actually a vote against my own interests.

And aside from the odd write-in campaign (first senatorial write-in win since 1967), there are plenty of other candidates you may vote for out of name recognition that, if you knew their platforms or their personality, you'd have avoided like the plague. Like the candidate who put a postcard in your mailbox saying he supports lowering taxes, but doesn't mention he wants an across-the-boards 20% cut in school funding, including your child's school, to do it. Or the candidate who wants to bring new jobs to your state, but doesn't mention that she plans to do so by building a prison in your hometown.

Just think, if Charlie Rangel runs again, he's not going to put tax evasion on his postcards. Does that mean you shouldn't vote for him? Not necessarily, but you should at least dig deep enough to find that sort of thing out before you tick the box because you heard his name on NPR or because he has a (D) next to his name.

In short, don't vote America! Unless you actually know who you're voting for.

On restoring sanity to modern political discourse: An introduction

I'm starting this blog as a response to some of the bias and vitriol coming from both sides of the American political spectrum. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. But I'm not writing to cry foul over biased media or to point fingers. There are plenty of voices left, right and center devoted to that. What I want to achieve here is the forwarding of our democracy and the clarification of what we've been doing of late and what we can and should do to improve that. These are ideas, and I'm open to suggestion or criticism. In fact, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm promoting.

What I'm promoting is a responsible electorate. A strong democracy comes, not from the promotion of one political idea over another, or one reading of history over another, but from the reasoned, civil discussion on the meaning of those ideas and histories. And it comes from people acting earnestly as voting citizens, and not in an attempt to 'game' the system. This is true of any parliamentary or congressional system, whether it be one-person-one-vote or weighted, direct elections or representative, universal suffrage or some limited process. I'll dig into that more in future posts.

As I'm sure, provided I get readership, that I'll be asked this, I'm socially liberal and moderate to mildly conservative fiscally. I do believe in the government's responsibility to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, but I'm not an advocate of an unchecked welfare state. If you're a pure 'bootstraps', free market, or social conservative, I'm probably pretty liberal for your tastes. If you're a pure regulated economy, pro-tariff liberal, you probably equally take issue with my political opinions.

I say this, not because I plan to make it a centerpiece or even an component of the blog, but because there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Every media system, every politician, and every citizen everywhere in the world is a product of the place and time they live in, the opinions that surround them, and some researchers suggest their genetics on some level. And we all suffer from cognitive dissonance. Those statements alone belie my belief in relativism, which in itself may get me some critics (the pope certainly is opposed to it, though I doubt he'll read my blog). But if I'm aiming for civil discourse, I think it's necessary to note my political leanings.

So I'm going to put out some of my opinions on how a civil system should work and how it currently works. I'm not a civics professor or even teacher. I haven't read all of the writings of our founding fathers or the economic/political thinkers of the Enlightenment. But I have read a good deal of those writings, and debated several of their ideas. Feel free to add to the discussion, and feel free to disagree. I'll listen to anyone who will discuss it reasonably.