The results are in. The Democrats have control of the House, the Senate is in the balance. All in all, an exciting Election Day.
I don't consider myself very political. I don't keep up with many of the issues and decisions that are made by my local and/or national representatives. I made my choices yesterday based on some light research and an MPR survey. Where I didn't know who the candidates were, I voted Democrat. In only one race did I make a vote that I had mixed feelings about, and that was the Governor's race. And this morning I find out that with much of the nation swinging to the left, Tim Pawlenty(R) remains in office in Minnesota.
The Results ........................................... Votes ..... Percent
(DFL) Mike Hatch and Judi Dutcher --------- 1,007,100_45.7%
(R) -- Tim Pawlenty and Carol Molnau ------- 1,029,186_46.7%
(IP) - Peter Hutchinson and Maureen Reed -- 141,656___6.4%
(GP)- Ken Pentel and Danene Provencher ---- 10,853____0.5%
I'm not surprised. And I don't think that I'm really that disappointed. But Pawlenty's election does seem to remind me of our last Presidential election a bit (and maybe the one before as well), although this time things are less severe (smaller race, less contrast between candidates, no popular vote vs. electoral debate...). Regardless, and just as in the '04 election, this Governor's race put me into the (now) familiar situation of having to choose between the candidate that would ideally serve me best and the candidate that would realistically serve the public.
After voting yesterday I take an emotional/moral/personal inventory, in regards to voting.
-Part of me just feels good for voting. I did a good thing.
-Part of me is panicked over me not eating enough for breakfast because I had to get up early to vote.
-Part of me was happy to see the voting line so long.
-Part of me is happy that I'm missing 5 minutes of work because the voting line was so long.
- Then, part of me thinks: "I should have voted for Peter Hutchinson, but I pussed out and voted for the candidate best equipped to take out the Republican incumbent!"
Why did I?
And why have I done this in the past?
I find myself pressured, by myself and by others, to vote for the candidates, and not the parties. I do believe that two parties is often too few to effectively represent the opinions of everyone. But like any issue, it's important that breaking up the two party system doesn't become an overwhelming factor in a person's voting record. And guess by now it's obvious that I think this might be happening a bit with voters on the left.
We liberals are disadvantaged at the moment seeing as how the 3rd and 4th party candidates usually (or in MN?) have platforms that more closely align with the Democrats. (And I can see how the elected Republicans would benefit from more '3rd Party' voters in the same vein they're in now.) Or put it this way, if this actually were a strict two party system the last couple major elections would have gone differently, to say the least.
So are liberals really benefiting, in this day and age, from this idealistic kind of voting (voting for candidates who don't really have a shot)?
I'm not sure.
My doubts about all of this started when I started thinking about voting and politics in terms of what it was achieving for 'the greater good'. So, what does aligning oneself with a '3rd Party' achieve for the greater good? It can increase awareness on issues at an increasing rate, as long as that party stays out of obscurity. The Green Party definitely has brought a lot to the table, and has challenged the major candidates to address issues that they would have otherwise ignored. But couldn't a lot of that be done by environmental and social groups if we first had a group in office that was receptive to those kinds of issues?
My opinion is that more of what the Independent or Green Party wants to accomplish could be done more quickly if Democrats were kept in office. On the one hand, it could seem like these '3rd Parties' were settling for something that they don't want less instead of getting exactly what they want. But I think it could also be seen as a step forward. In the eyes of Green/Independent Party members couldn't they be supporting their issues and their people, if not their parties, by supporting the more-liberal candidates?
I know that: 1. I must be under-educated on the contributions of the Green and Independent Parties in their current forms, and that's why I cant see the value of their perennial involvement as opposed to their possible supporting role. But hey! If I'm still under-educated about their roles and causes, maybe that's another indication that they're not doing enough. 2. Ok, yeah, I like to play the Devil's Advocate, and not only in public, but with myself to see how I really feel about things. I know that I have more to learn here, but I think that's saying more than some people on both sides of this issue. The case isn't that we absolutely need more or less parties, it's that if we liberal minded folk want to see more go our way in the future, we have to know how to win races. In a close race, nearing the finish line, and when that race is clearly between a strong number 1 and 2, that might mean shifting priorities and having numbers 3 and 4 pass off their water bottles to number 1 so he/she can win the race, remembering all along that 3 and 4 helped him/her get there.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Seige,
Your talk about the 3rd/4th parties really resonated with me. I too have considered voting outside of the donkeys and elephants, and I must say, especially in this year's governor's race, but in the end, I typically end up voting mainstream. For me, there's just too much at stake, and often too many stark contrasts between the two major candidates, and also I tend to wonder if the 3rd party candidates wouldn't end up being the sort of politicians they are always complaining about if they did indeed come to power... power corrupts... and Washington isn't a friendly place either... it's not as easy to push through an effective and powerful national energy policy, for example, as it is to talk about it when you don't care how much donation money you get, who your friends are in town, or have no expectation of actually winning an election. In some ways, I think the Dems, especially, get less credit than they deserve for their efforts in many of those areas, or at least some of them do. I guess we'll see what happens now that they will have some power again.
One thing that I'd love to see happen to our election system--either have a primary to get the race down to 2 candidates, or have a ranking system in voting (vote for 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice, or whatever) with different weights given to each priority choice. That way everyone could express more of what they want, I would think. Maybe I'm missing something though.
Thanks for posting and getting me thinking!
Thanks Dave (I think it's you?),
So, now you're thinking with me, and already this blog has done more than I could have asked for!
Cool.
Bjorn-
You bring up some very strong points about the way our electoral process functions. There are many options out there and while I don't know about many of them very in depth I don't believe that anyone can address all the issues that arise. I have struggled with the same issues you bring up the candidate I really like vs. the one that at times scares me vs. the one I kind of like that maybe can win. I have become better at accepting that is the way it goes sometimes and that we will vote again in a few more years in a process that even with all its negative adds(which I have been lucky to miss this time around) is still very peaceful and civil. I remember waking up 2 years ago and feeling pretty down on what had happened but then decided to do get more involved, become more informed, and to have more talks about issues with people instead of just about what movie we last saw.
On a slightly different note I will say one thing about the Pawlenty win that might be ok and I don't think anyone confuse me by any means with one of his supporters. Looking back at the past few years at the national level we have had full control by one party and that causes no need to take a look at the view from the other side. All negations move to inside the party and things move farther to the extremes. While I hold many views that some call extreme I believe that others have just as good a right for their views to be heard and that strong civil debate is a healthy process that is needed and hopefully can be fostered back into our system. I think that multiple parties sharing power helps insure that more views are heard.
Well back to the ocean breezes and coconuts
Peace
Tbone
Tim,
Hello, first of all! Always nice to hear from Mr. Samoa.
You're right, I think, about both major parties needing to check each other a bit. I would hate for the Dems to spin out of control and have an even larger lash back down the road.
And that's a good attitude about the process in general. The elections happen, good or bad, and we can only control what we do and how we feel next.
Globally yours,
Bjorn
interestingly enough, i'm quite sure the reforendum/ballot/whatever it was for instant run-off balloting in minneapolis passed. Granted, it's just for city elections, but that goes as far as Mayor... so the notion that third party candidates take the democrats farther to the middle/right should hopefully become more and more negligible at least locally. We can all hope that if it indeed is seen as successful, that perhaps it will be adopted into the larger electoral arena.
Looks like it passed in Minneapolis 65%-35%, T-woks, according to its website anyway http://www.betterballotcampaign.org/. I really didn't realize IRV was as big of a deal as it is until I did some research after reading your comments... now that I've read some more about it, I can't think of any reason not to implement instant run-off voting everywhere. Not sure how useful it will be for the Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation elections, but wow, I'd love to see it implemented in our next presidential election. I wonder, then, what percentage some of those 3rd party candidates would be able to get in that "first round" of voting?!?
I have to say, I will typically vote Independent, but was I forced to take a side, I'd swing elephant.
I have a hard time believing (not just in politics, but in anything) that I am totally alone in my beliefs. So you can take solice in that.
PS You should have gone Hutchinson. You know I did.
Post a Comment