The awful thing about voting McCain

Remember Rod, Dan Larison thinks the same about the incumbent in the 1865 election.

I prefer to point a cynical finger and jaundiced eye at the electorate's inability to distinguish between policy and potted plants. It's not that the president is capable of providing sheltering shade, but that he (and some day she) looks good doing it. Feh.

I will assert (as opposed to confess or concede) that Obama is no different in the eyes of the electorate. That I will vote for him, and did so in the primary, makes me little happier than Rod's anticipated vote for McCain makes Rod feel. I, too, am ready to cast my presidential vote against rather than for.

If you watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments, or if you look at the statistics about local school systems, or if you just listen in casual conversation with a friend who is unconcerned about politics, you'll find the ignorance overwhelming. In a Jaywalking-type segment on YouTube recently, a citizen was asked to find North Korea on a map. Pointing to Australia he said he was startled to see exactly how small South Korea (Tasmania) is.

It's distressing to note that guy's vote counts the same as yours.

It's even more distressing to know that he's in the majority, but it does explain how America failed a one question, multiple choice test in 2004 after having four years to study.

It's distressing to note that guy's vote counts the same as yours.

I am reminded of how cranky universal suffrage made Robert Heinlein. IIRC, one of his proposed solutions was limiting the franchise to those able to pay poll taxes and solve quadratic equations. Not sure how much I like that idea....

I made a hobby of geography when I was growing up, and thus am now cursed to know the location of pretty much every country outside Africa. Even after the geopolitical changes of the past two decades. I find it difficult to sympathize with the geographically-challenged.

Rod,

You live in Texas. Unless McCain's caught with the proverbial dead girl or live boy, he's going to take our electoral votes regardless of who you vote for. You might as well "throw away" your vote and pull the lever for Bob Barr. Yes, he's nowhere near being ideal, but increasing his vote totals gives you a means of expressing your views.

Well, for my money, the options are: vote for Bob Barr, vote for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), write in Ron Paul, or just not vote. What's wrong with not voting? If all the choices suck, why do we feel that we must go to the polls and take part in a charade?

I guess I feel that I should vote for someone because then I feel that I can complain when things go wrong.

I second Merlin's post. People tend to forget that the presidential race is just one part of what's likely to be a long ballot. Local issues are at least as important because they will affect our lives more directly.

Actually, I think local issues are more important as they not only affect us directly, we have more control over them.

I do usually just vote for someone so I can complain.

There is absolutely nothing that requires any of us -- or any American -- to vote for one of the two major party candidates. Obviously, anyone who chooses to vote for a candidate other than one of the two statistically most likely to win has to consider the likelihood that his/her vote will not "matter" in a decisive sense. But doesn't the purpose of one's vote -- let alone the integrity of one's beliefs -- matter more than the statistical impact of one's vote?

Personally, I was leaning Libertarian until the Libertarians nominated Bob Barr. Others may disagree, but for one of the linchpins behind the wasted effort of the Clinton impeachment to be running as a Libertarian strikes me as use of a "flag of convenience", rather like a rust-bucket freighter sailing under the ensign of the Cape Verde Islands.

My current plan is to keep an ear to this campaign, and to the development of events between now and November, but to keep my mind open to selecting the two Americans whom I believe best equipped to lead this nation, writing their names in, and calling it good.

What I am certain of is that if any of us does not vote, we have no voice. If enough of us voted so that the category of "other" really mattered, maybe someone would notice.

Rank idealism, I admit. I'm not counseling unalloyed idealism with one's vote. But for those of us who have sincere misgivings about the two major party candidates -- and the two major parties -- have two choices. We can not vote, which leaves us out of the play entirely. Or we can choose to use our vote responsibly.

I somehow think in this great land of ours, we can do better than the two principal candidates. I plan on acting on that belief.

Richard

I think that the age of the candidate has to be a crucial factor in this election. We're facing so many problems from so many different directions (two wars, crippling debt, a possible financial meltdown, accelerating climate change, economic upheaval if people choose to walk away from their bloated mortgages, and other pressing issues I'm forgetting), that the President will have to be someone capable of putting out several fires at once. McCain's admission that he isn't very knowledgeable about the economy already disqualifies him, to my mind.

An Obama presidency may not make conservatives happy, but he is the more promising candidate to lead the country through an especially difficult period in our history. In such times, a flexible temperament and a capacity to inspire are the most necessary qualities. To be a successful President in the next few years, he must be engaged in fighting against the powerful forces that resist necessity and believe that the status quo can somehow be maintained. He will have to contend with these forces not only in the opposing party but also within his own. I think that Obama will be more capable of resisting the entrenched segments of the Left (which are always easy for mainstream liberal politicians to resist - Jessie Jackson already did him a favor) than McCain will be in resisting the entrenched interests of the Right and big business. McCain, it seems, will try to be both TR and Reagan, a balancing act certain to invite disaster, and possibly fall woefully short of even W, who has shown that he is capable of learning from experience. In other words, McCain faces the bigger fight when it comes to pursuing a pragmatic policy, and as someone who is nearing is 80s, has less fuel in the tank for succeeding in such struggles.

Political Atheist:

Would you say the same thing if the Obama-style candidate was a Republican and the McCain-style candidate was a Democrat? Would you vote for the younger and more charismatic of the two?