Utterly Disgusted
For the first time in my life, I'm seriously considering not voting in an election.
Local elections are being held today for an "At Large" city commissioner's seat. The two (and only two) candidates are both decidedly less than stellar. One is an environmentalist who reaks of Socialism, and the other is a Republican whose avowed purpose in life is to get Gainesville the most stringent zoning laws in the country. In other words, I have no one to vote for, and two excellent choices to vote against.
So, what does one do? How do you vote when there's no good choice? I mean, sure, the 2004 election did a good job of establishing the criteria (not that 2000 was that much better), but depending on which side of the aisle one sat, there was a pretty good choice of who you wanted to vote against (I don't think I've voted for a candidate since I friggin' started voting).
In this day and age of consistently crappy candidates, we need to take a lesson from the old Soviet Union, for despite their many shortcomings, they did get one thing right: their voting ballots.
Okay, get past the whole "Party" thing and the fact that the Soviets only had one Party to choose from; for all intents and purposes so do we. It doesn't make that much of a difference these days -- you've got a choice between right-wing socialists and left-wing socialists, what with the way the Republican-run Congress has been spending. And don't give me that "There's A War On" crap, either; this Congress has been spending our money like three hundred-fifty Ted Kennedys on a bender, and for all sorts of non-military related fiscal ridiculousness like the Highway Bill, which had at its core some $35-billion worth of butt-kissing earmarks.
What I'm talking about is the oft touted but never realized option to select none of the above. The Soviets had that. They had two days to vote, both of which were holidays (which I'm not in favor of -- business has to get done) and they usually had only one name on the ballot, BUT they also had a block that simply said "No." Even if they had two or more names to select from, all good, loyal Communists, they still had the right to exercise the "No" option.
And it happend quite a bit. If a candidate did not recieve a majority of the vote, they didn't take office. Even if there was only one name on the ballot, if that candidate received 49.999999999% of the vote and the "No's" received 50.00000001%, that candidate was out on his ear and a second election was held a month later.
I guess because the hardy citizens of the old CCCP had so little say in their lives that they took every opportunity to say something. Voter turnout was typically 98.5%. All the time. Ours is what, 30-40%? On Presidential elections. In local elections... well, we'll be lucky to break 10% today.
Which brings me back to my original point. What choice is there when there's no choice? In the past, I've always been able to hold my nose and vote for one candidate/against an opposing candidate, but no matter who I vote for in this election, I lose. I'll either end up paying more in taxes for inane spending to coddle irresponsible behavior, or I'll be forced to bow more to an already full-of-itself city whose idea of liberty is to do what they tell you, property rights be damned.
So until I have a "No" option to vote FOR, both parties will simply continue to run losers that represent their parties but will never, ever represent the people that get to call themselves their constituents. In other words, I'll continue to lose; we all will.
Semper Fi,
The Almighty Mattski
Local elections are being held today for an "At Large" city commissioner's seat. The two (and only two) candidates are both decidedly less than stellar. One is an environmentalist who reaks of Socialism, and the other is a Republican whose avowed purpose in life is to get Gainesville the most stringent zoning laws in the country. In other words, I have no one to vote for, and two excellent choices to vote against.
So, what does one do? How do you vote when there's no good choice? I mean, sure, the 2004 election did a good job of establishing the criteria (not that 2000 was that much better), but depending on which side of the aisle one sat, there was a pretty good choice of who you wanted to vote against (I don't think I've voted for a candidate since I friggin' started voting).
In this day and age of consistently crappy candidates, we need to take a lesson from the old Soviet Union, for despite their many shortcomings, they did get one thing right: their voting ballots.
Okay, get past the whole "Party" thing and the fact that the Soviets only had one Party to choose from; for all intents and purposes so do we. It doesn't make that much of a difference these days -- you've got a choice between right-wing socialists and left-wing socialists, what with the way the Republican-run Congress has been spending. And don't give me that "There's A War On" crap, either; this Congress has been spending our money like three hundred-fifty Ted Kennedys on a bender, and for all sorts of non-military related fiscal ridiculousness like the Highway Bill, which had at its core some $35-billion worth of butt-kissing earmarks.
What I'm talking about is the oft touted but never realized option to select none of the above. The Soviets had that. They had two days to vote, both of which were holidays (which I'm not in favor of -- business has to get done) and they usually had only one name on the ballot, BUT they also had a block that simply said "No." Even if they had two or more names to select from, all good, loyal Communists, they still had the right to exercise the "No" option.
And it happend quite a bit. If a candidate did not recieve a majority of the vote, they didn't take office. Even if there was only one name on the ballot, if that candidate received 49.999999999% of the vote and the "No's" received 50.00000001%, that candidate was out on his ear and a second election was held a month later.
I guess because the hardy citizens of the old CCCP had so little say in their lives that they took every opportunity to say something. Voter turnout was typically 98.5%. All the time. Ours is what, 30-40%? On Presidential elections. In local elections... well, we'll be lucky to break 10% today.
Which brings me back to my original point. What choice is there when there's no choice? In the past, I've always been able to hold my nose and vote for one candidate/against an opposing candidate, but no matter who I vote for in this election, I lose. I'll either end up paying more in taxes for inane spending to coddle irresponsible behavior, or I'll be forced to bow more to an already full-of-itself city whose idea of liberty is to do what they tell you, property rights be damned.
So until I have a "No" option to vote FOR, both parties will simply continue to run losers that represent their parties but will never, ever represent the people that get to call themselves their constituents. In other words, I'll continue to lose; we all will.
Semper Fi,
The Almighty Mattski
posted by The Almighty Mattski | 20:36
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home