I'm a tad embarrassed to admit this after the
sturm und drang reader response to
my “I ain't votin" column in the Guardian last week, but: I went and voted today after all, after being persuaded by others’ arguments. Most of my votes went to third-party or even write-in candidates with zero chance of winning; the only vote I made for anyone on the Democrat/Republican axis was in Connecticut’s gubernatorial race. If Dan Malloy wins I fully expect to loathe him for multiple reasons, but he offers the possibility of one real, concrete improvement for my state: three years ago the legislature voted to allow medical marijuana, but the governor vetoed it. Malloy, at least, has expressed support for medical MJ and decriminalization.
I’ve got the MSNBC election special on TV right now. If Rand Paul shared more than just a name with his dad, I’d be very happy about his election.
4 Comments:
I'm watching MSNBC too, with the same sentiments regarding the younger Paul. If I weren't very far from home today I might have voted for some third party candidates with the full knowledge that it won't make a lick of difference, but I am so I didn't.
Looks like I sold out for nothing, Gretchen; the one major-party guy I voted for looks set to lose anyway.
This is why the good lord invented alcohol. On one hand it's good to vote, even if you vote for the losing side, so people will know just how much support there is for the candidates. Someone who only gets 10% of the vote is unlikely to try again. Someone who got 49% may see a glimmer of hope.
On the other hand, the whole election business has virtually nothing to do with the wheeling and dealing that actually makes things happen, so voting is basically a waste of time.
Time to go to the bar.
When a third party draws more votes than the number that separates the top two, the #2 party will look for ways to get those third party guys to vote for them next time around.
The #1 party will look for ways to keep the #3 guys off the ballot.
Post a Comment
<< Home