I'm a bit confused when I hear the following statement: "Well, if that's the case, I'll vote for the other candidate." It's usually more specific, such as if you don't like Barack Obama, you're going to then vote for John McCain. It's one or the other.
But why? What is the logic behind just automatically switching to the other candidate?
The strange thing is, it seems that this sort of mentality is used by people who don't vote based on relevant issues. It's usually something like (and I've heard this): "I won't vote for Barack Obama because he smokes cigarettes." Is it valid? Perhaps, but I don't see how it's any reason to automatically switch to McCain. Whether he smokes or not really doesn't make him a better or worse candidate for President.
But what I want to discuss is the very nature of the two party system. Throughout American History, there have been many prominent political parties. First there were the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, then later on came the Whigs, the Bull Moose Party, then finally the modern Democratic and Republican Parties. But it seems that, for the most part, we've always been a two party system. Why is that, exactly?
I think it comes down to people reverting to the two-sided approach to any problem. It's a popular way of thinking, so it should make sense that our political system reflects that. I'm not sure why then so many European nations have far more than two major parties, but that's another debate. Let's just stick with American politics for now.
Two parties. Two different agendas. But people still switch from one to the other relatively regularly. Instead of doing a bit of research, a lot of people ignore other candidates entirely. They're afraid they'll "throw their vote away." What kind of rationale is that? If it's your vote, vote how you wish based on what's important to you. But be mindful of why you're really voting for some one. Frankly, I'm going to vote for the person whose ideals and principles are closest to mine. That's far from throwing a vote away.
But why? What is the logic behind just automatically switching to the other candidate?
The strange thing is, it seems that this sort of mentality is used by people who don't vote based on relevant issues. It's usually something like (and I've heard this): "I won't vote for Barack Obama because he smokes cigarettes." Is it valid? Perhaps, but I don't see how it's any reason to automatically switch to McCain. Whether he smokes or not really doesn't make him a better or worse candidate for President.
But what I want to discuss is the very nature of the two party system. Throughout American History, there have been many prominent political parties. First there were the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, then later on came the Whigs, the Bull Moose Party, then finally the modern Democratic and Republican Parties. But it seems that, for the most part, we've always been a two party system. Why is that, exactly?
I think it comes down to people reverting to the two-sided approach to any problem. It's a popular way of thinking, so it should make sense that our political system reflects that. I'm not sure why then so many European nations have far more than two major parties, but that's another debate. Let's just stick with American politics for now.
Two parties. Two different agendas. But people still switch from one to the other relatively regularly. Instead of doing a bit of research, a lot of people ignore other candidates entirely. They're afraid they'll "throw their vote away." What kind of rationale is that? If it's your vote, vote how you wish based on what's important to you. But be mindful of why you're really voting for some one. Frankly, I'm going to vote for the person whose ideals and principles are closest to mine. That's far from throwing a vote away.
No comments:
Post a Comment