Earlier in the week, a friend informed me that she will not be voting. While I was not surprised, I asked her why. Her response was that she does not know who she should vote for or what she should base her vote on. She then asked what I thought: Should someone who doesn't know who they want to vote for vote anyways? My answer to her was straightforward: The person should know and then they should vote. While I was speaking with this friend, I understood what she was saying. Why would a person spend so much time concerning herself with politics when there are other things to do (such as get lost in a marathon of television)? Still, I had no sympathy for her lack of knowledge. Since then, my own confidence in voting has been shaken.
I hate the two party system. The problem I have with the two party system is that I feel limited. Personally, I agree with the social policies of one party and the fiscal policies of another. So what does this mean? It means I have to choose. What means more to me, my morals or belief of what will get our nation back on track fiscally? Up until today, I was quite certain that fiscal issues mean more to me. As my other posts can attest, I care deeply about education. Forgetting all of my personal bias- both of my parents have worked in and made their living in the education field and I am a college student- I genuinely believe that education is consistently one of the most important issues on the ballot. Education is one of the few issues that can be pointed to as having an immediate, lasting and irreversible impact on the future of our nation at all times. This is one of the main reasons I have chosen to focus on fiscal issues.
Personally, I also find fiscal issues to be the least controversial. While they are extremely important, people are less likely to be insulted by discussions on fiscal issues. Altogether, fiscal issues are less emotionally charged and look to find practical solutions. Social issues on the other hand, are emotionally charged. Even a discussion on certain issues can greatly offend individuals on either side. Call me a pansy, but I prefer not to deal with emotions when discussing politics.
Maybe in doing this, I have chosen the easy way out. Instead of standing up for what I believe in, I have chosen to deal with issues that are important and are less controversial. Perhaps my friend was the more correct of the two of us: maybe it would be better if I did not vote. Of course I will vote but the discussion with my friend forced me to think about things I have never thought about before. Is it acceptable that I am choosing to ignore a set of issues for my own comfort and the comfort of those around me? I think not.
If I speak to Christians, the task of convincing them to vote (regardless of how much weight their individual vote carries) is usually simple since I just put it in terms of prayer and revelation and the understanding that whichever party has victory will be under the control of God. For the secular person I sarcastically tell them to please cast their vote with the candidate of my choosing and at least one of us will be happy. That usually gets them fired up and gets the bigger point across (if you don't do it, someone else will have a voice for you and not to your liking).
ReplyDeleteI do think in the scheme of responsibilities upon a citizen of a democracy, it is the top priority to understand the political landscape to the best of his or her ability, and have a stake in the country of his or her citizenship. If the citizen does not vote, they effectively does not exercise their rights as a stakeholder. They must, then, deal with the society around them, and wield their political power in other ways, such as activism.
ReplyDelete