Adventures in Voting!
Feb 12th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 7 Comments |
I just got back from my local polling place. It was so much fun.
Fred Thompson is still on the ballot in Maryland. So I voted for Thompson. (*uproarious laughter*) But not only is Thompson on the ballot, you have to vote for delegates to the Convention separately.
Many of the delegates have their chosen candidate’s name beside their own on the ballot. So you could cast a vote for Thompson, and then vote for three delegates and three alternate delegates who were pledged to Giuliani (who was still on the ballot as well).
I didn’t, however. Straight Thompson. Of course, I cast serious votes for Congress and Judges. (There’s a “serious”/”protest”/”joke” radio button on the ballot you see.) (Just kidding.) (But the ballots are electronic.)
Why Thompson, you ask? I’m tired of feeling forced into voting for the lesser of two evils. And Thompson ran as a philosopher. His campaign was focused on the distinction between “Principles” and “Issues.”
It was a foolish choice, if we’re speaking of practicalities. Plato wrote in The Republic, over 2300 years ago, about how people don’t see philosophers as worthy of political rule (click here, then do a ctrl-f search for “For any one of us might say”).
But, being a philosopher, I wanted the philosopher candidate . . . .
The Wife had suggested I vote for Obama. And I was going to, but unfortunately you get separate Republican and Democrat ballots. Voting for Thompson has almost the same effect.
Anyway, have fun, voting (if you haven’t already)!
[...] James Joyner wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFred Thompson is still on the ballot in Maryland. So I voted for Thompson. (*uproarious laughter*) But not only is Thompson on the ballot, you have to vote for delegates to the Convention independently. … [...]
It doesn’t matter, since Thompson won’t get any delegates, but if he did, those delegates would almost certainly go to McCain, whom Thompson has endorsed.
Ha ha!
Micah voted for McCain.
Good for you! I’m also tired of voting for he lesser of two evils. In the deepest part of my soul, I belive that you did the right thing.
My primary is two weeks away. I will not vote for John McCain. I don’t care who tells me that I’m throwing away my vote. I’d rather throw away my vote than my conscience.
Renaissance Guy, I don’t think that anybody would argue that voting against McCain in a primary (where he is now all but unopposed) is throwing a vote away. Some people might argue that not voting for one of the two major party candidates in the general election is throwing your vote away, but that’s a whole other thing. (Personally, I wouldn’t argue that since I don’t believe one vote could possibly have any effect on a national election anyway.)
Andrew Stevens, do you have to be so much smarter than I am? :)
I just have one comment to make in response. I don’t know if you are hearing what I am hearing, but lots of people are saying that they will not cast their one vote for John McCain. When you add up all those single votes, it makes a difference. Of course, I don’t really have to tell you that. As I said, you are smarter than I.
Well, I wouldn’t be too sure about that. One of the reasons I don’t blog myself is I do much better reacting to other people rather than being proactive myself. I’m nothing special in regards to my own ideas, though I believe I do have a talent at analyzing other people’s.
I should say that I encourage anybody who doesn’t support McCain to give a protest vote in whatever manner they believe most effectively communicates the nature of their protest. The remaining primaries are “free” for protest votes and I believe that Republican voters have the duty and obligation to express to McCain exactly where they disagree with him. He’s going to be the Republican candidate so you should tell him where you think he’s wrong. Perhaps he’ll change his mind.
One of the things I disliked about the Bush presidency was how conservatives rolled over for him far too often. It was only during his second term (immigration most notably) that conservatives dared to criticize Bush. I understand why this happened. The left was piling on Bush so egregiously unfairly that it was natural and reflexive for the right to protect him and not pile on themselves. But ultimately, I think it was bad for Bush, bad for conservatives, and bad for the country that the right wasn’t willing to criticize him more often (particularly on Iraq and spending).