Voting

I mentioned before that political discussion is useless because everyone’s minds are already made up. Maybe I’m giving myself too much credit, but I like to think I’m not like that. I change my mind all the time based on what I read. Some might even say that I’m too impressionable. (Rob has made fun of me for believing everything I read. Which I don’t. But he makes fun of me for it.) Henry regularly berates Dave for being inconsistent. Inconsistent is one thing, and legitimately criticizable, but changing your mind is different – the latter is a sign of learning. To learn something new by definition means changing your mind. It thus logically follows that someone who never ever changes his mind about anything never learns anything new.

Politically, I’ve been all over the place. For most of my life I’ve been a Republican. I voted for Bush in 2000 (even in retrospect, I stand by that vote. I dislike Al Gore; in my opinion, he has no character, and to me, that matters a lot. For example, he talks environment all the time, but his house is far less energy-efficient than W’s Texas ranch, and W ain’t no environmentalist. in 1997, the Gores’ charitable giving totaled $353. Granted, it was an atypical year, but that still says something about him). Back then, I bemoaned that the press wasn’t presenting the Bush I knew, the compassionate conservative. It turns out that the Bush I knew isn’t who Bush really is. (SN. I hear certain McCain backers talk about the “McCain they know” a lot also. I doubt they’ll ever acknowledge that the McCain they knew isn’t who McCain is, no matter how dirty his campaign gets.) So I voted for Kerry in 2004.

Since then, I flirted seriously with Libertarianism (spurred by, of all people, John Stossel). I still share most of their values. The reason I’m so harshly critical of it is because I used to be in that camp before I recognized what I believe to be its shortcomings. It’s like how ex-Christians are especially critical of the Church.

Point is, I think I can be swayed. For that reason, I never vote early – I like to have the maximum amount of time to be convinced one way or another. There are other reasons I wait until Election Day: I like the feeling of voting in person, talking to the invariably old volunteers, getting the “I Voted” sticker afterward. I like voting. Plus, as has been said, you have no right to complain if you don’t vote. I like to complain. Thus, I vote, to earn that right.

Anyway, one thing that I disagree with – when people vote as if it’s a referendum on one of the options as opposed to choosing the better option. I feel like people do this all the time. For example, when I said I’m voting for Obama, one person mentioned how they could not get over how Obama left the troops out to dry, something like that. A reasonable criticism. But does this single issue make him the worse candidate? It’s not about whether one of the candidates is perfect, because neither is, and you can find a plethora of things wrong with each. It’s about which is better. Thus, it’s not about whether Obama is perfect. It’s about whether he’s the better candidate than McCain.

When I wrote that I think Obama’s economic policies are better than McCain’s, Derek asked me, what about his proposal for a moratorium on foreclosures? That may or may not be a legitimate criticism, but it doesn’t address the question. I never said Obama’s economic policies are perfect. I simply said that they’re better. That there are things wrong with them doesn’t say anything in themselves; they need to be weighed against the alternatives. And I stand by what I said – Obama’s economic proposals are better than McCain’s. Not perfect. Just better.

The last time CA had a proposition related to redistricting (something I feel passionately about), I wrote about how disappointed I was that it failed (Nov 11, 2005 to be precise). Jibin wrote a comment about how it gave too much power to the judges who would be doing the redistricting without any accountability. It’s a legitimate criticism. But again, the question is not whether it’s a perfect proposal, but which is the better alternative – the proposal or the status quo? To me, legislators defining their own districts is worse. They rig their own borders so it’s majority Democrat/Republican so that they’re seats are always safe. (CMC has a redistricting hall of shame that compares districts before and after the legislature redistricted.) To me, that’s even worse than no accountability – they rig the system so there’s no accountability plus they have self-interest. As that CMC page shows, in the past, court-defined districts were reasonably defined. Thus, to me, it’s almost empirical that the current system of destricting is worse. The current borders and endless budget battles every year testify to this.

(SN. “Accountability” is a little overrated to me. You might quibble with the Supreme Court’s decisions, but I think over the balance of history, it’s done much more good than bad, largely because it’s not “accountable”, in the sense that their positions are at risk. Politicians who need to be re-elected frequently and knowingly do the popular thing even when they know it’s not the right thing.)

So. I doubt anyone is reading this, and most people have already voted, but I ask you, when considering the alternatives, do consider the alternatives, and not whether one of the alternatives is perfect. The end.