Not completing my ballot

[jessefs 0]

I just wanted to get others opinions on my voting decision this morning. Out of 89 decisions on the Cook County ballot, I did not place a vote for 3 of the choices. 1 of my blanks was for Representative in the General Assembly, 2 blanks were to keep current, local judges in place.

My reason for not voting on these 3 selections is that I did not educate myself on them, therefore, I had nothing to base my decision on other than affiliated party. All other 86 votes were researched ahead of time.

The poll is regarding my decision to not vote based on lack of information and if it is worse/better/or the same as voting only based on the party.

I understand that technically, no vote = no vote.
This is more of a moral/beliefs issue.
Thanks!


P.S. - If you vote better or worse, please explain why. Thanks.

<* Spread the Love! *>

[peregrinerose 0]

I agree with you. If I truly have no clue, I don't vote on a certain race. The problem with that is that other morons who have no clue don't have that kind of restraint so in the end the candidate is voted in by total guesses of idiots who pick whatever candidate has a bigger sign at the entrance to the polling place.

I have no idea what a good way to handle it is.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[DrewEckhardt 0]

I didn't vote on whether or not to retain our judges because the summaries I got didn't say anything about their records on the cases that would interest me and I didn't care enough to find out.

Whoever cares more about the judges should decide their fare.

[billvon 3,070]

I did the same. I didn't vote on some of the local school-board races because I know that there are a lot of parents in my area far better informed on those people than I am.

[Zenister 0]

i voted Kerry, Mcain and straight Lib/Ind on every choice where offered.. which left the entire back side and 40% of the front empty... those races have little effect on my life in any real manner and i am largely ignorant of the issues and characters involved in them...

IMO even allowing someone to vote who has no idea of the candidates platforms and issues involved is stupid.. how many people do you think are elected by those who are simply 'filling out the slots' and voting the party line because they are Dem/Rep but couldnt define a single position for any candidate in the races they are influencing?

the ignorant shouldnt be allowed to vote... but there is no way to enforce that ideal and remain a democracy...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[boudy 0]

>>IMO even allowing someone to vote who has no idea of the candidates platforms and issues involved is stupid.. how many people do you think are elected by those who are simply 'filling out the slots' and voting the party line because they are Dem/Rep but couldnt define a single position for any candidate in the races they are influencing? <<

And who gets to decide how you determine who is sufficiently (and "properly??") informed to vote? What if a person is thoroughly informed by "misleading" sources?

As kids, we used to hear horror stories about the Soviets & Chi-coms sending political dissenters to mental institutions for "wrongful thinking."

In a matter of 2 minutes I have been informed by 3 different commercials by 3 separate sources about 1 candiate's position on 1 issue and they all contradict each other - so if I pick the "wrong" source to believe - am I too uninformed to vote? Says who?

As this election cycle has illustrated - various parties expend great sums of energy & money to misrepresent candidates' "postions," history, character, moral philosophy, etc etc - sometimes the party misrepresenting all this stuff is the candidate himself.

We live in a free society - if you feel strongly that certain political matters need greater atttention - you are legally & morally entitled to educate the citizenry and organize others in that effort .

While I agree with you that the electorate is too often woefully ill-informed concerning the matters for which they vote - I'd much rather encourage everyone to vote while simultaneously encouraging a better informed public - than to prequalify voters with a "properly informed" test provided by Big Brother.

As it is, incumbents can work the system so that they are hardly ever defeated.

editted fur speling -

[Zenister 0]

well first it helps if they know how to read...

did you make it to the bottom of my post?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jessefs 0]

I've sometimes wondered about an extremely basic issues test that must be passed in order to vote.
A basic yes/no or short phrase answer to issues given by the candidates, similar to ones you see on CNN/FOX/MSNBC, etc...

I can see many flaws that may arise in a system like this but wonder if it could at lease eliminate the completely clueless.

You have to pass a test to drive, pass a test to become a citizen, etc... These are tests that can be passed by anyone without a mental defect and a small amount of research and education.

I'm not sure how it could work or be fair, just a thought...

<* Spread the Love! *>

[boudy 0]

never mind

[Zenister 0]

and therein lies the problem with democracy...

do you really want to take a trip on the bus or plane who's driver is elected by the diverse and often combative group riding inside? we are about to... yet again....

fortunately the completely clueless eliminate themselves.... (no shit, there i was with a woman at the polls infront of me who was unaware she needed to register to vote.... they DO exist... i was kind of shocked.... sometimes i wonder if we as a society have taken 'natural selection' to far out of the picture...)

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jessefs 0]

Quote

and therein lies the problem with democracy...

I understand what you're saying and do not question our method of election. Looking to further improve an already good thing is all one can do in life (and elections).

Enjoy the show!!

<* Spread the Love! *>

[Michele 1]

There were several spots I left blank, and there were at least two where I recognized the incumbent's name but not the challenger, and yet voted for the challenger instead (Diane Feinstein, for one...).

On the major issues, I knew who or what position I preferred, and voted that way, without considering party line.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Jib 0]

Better.
When I looked at the ballot, there was more than one question that I had no idea what the office did let alone what the candidates stood for or did, or where they stood.
Somehow, I think there are people in Florida asking the same question about Kerry and Bush.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Douva 0]

Quote

I did the same. I didn't vote on some of the local school-board races because I know that there are a lot of parents in my area far better informed on those people than I am.

That's exactly my take. If I don't know anything about the candidates in a given race, I leave the decision to the people who do.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

If I don't know anything about the candidates in a given race, I leave the decision to the people who do.

so do you believe those who simply "vote the party line" KNOW better? because that is far more likely to be who you are really leaving the decision to....

and exactly why there should be some sort of qualification other than "breathing for 18+ years and citizen(but we wont bother to actually make sure that is verified, or that you are who you say you are, at the time of voting)"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.