Election Day 2004
I've never seen such passion regarding an election as I did this year. Most people who voted relied on their emotions rather than their intellect. While I may disagree with many of you, I respect your opinion and your ability to vote as you choose.
As election day neared, I was amazed at the number of undecided voters. Considering the vast differences between the two major candidates, this seemed hard to believe. This changed on election day when I spoke with 3 voters who were, you guessed it, still undecided. All three said, in so many words, they couldn't decide on a candidate so they figured they just vote for George W. The undecided voters that I spoke with were not aware of the issues. Kerry was a mystery to them. They voted for Bush by default. It was not an emotional or an informed vote.
I was wrong, very wrong. There were plenty of people without strong convictions who voted for reasons that might seem trivial to some but naturally, that is their right to do so. If they choose a candidate based on the length of their fingernails, so be it. That is their choice.
Yet it leads me to believe that these late decision makers did not follow the issues or the candidates closely. They made their decision on information sound bits, only remembering those things they can easily understand such as abortion, gay marriage and morality. Issues that require some level of understanding such as Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy (unless they are unemployed), the deficit and national security did not factor into their decision.
I honestly believe that if every voter took the time to learn all the issues and where each candidate stood, the outcome would have been very different. There are certainly those who are well-informed but still agree with George W. Would they feel the same about the war in Iraq, for example, if Bush approved of gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. Tell me, doesn't each issue deserve to stand on its own?
As election day neared, I was amazed at the number of undecided voters. Considering the vast differences between the two major candidates, this seemed hard to believe. This changed on election day when I spoke with 3 voters who were, you guessed it, still undecided. All three said, in so many words, they couldn't decide on a candidate so they figured they just vote for George W. The undecided voters that I spoke with were not aware of the issues. Kerry was a mystery to them. They voted for Bush by default. It was not an emotional or an informed vote.
I was wrong, very wrong. There were plenty of people without strong convictions who voted for reasons that might seem trivial to some but naturally, that is their right to do so. If they choose a candidate based on the length of their fingernails, so be it. That is their choice.
Yet it leads me to believe that these late decision makers did not follow the issues or the candidates closely. They made their decision on information sound bits, only remembering those things they can easily understand such as abortion, gay marriage and morality. Issues that require some level of understanding such as Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy (unless they are unemployed), the deficit and national security did not factor into their decision.
I honestly believe that if every voter took the time to learn all the issues and where each candidate stood, the outcome would have been very different. There are certainly those who are well-informed but still agree with George W. Would they feel the same about the war in Iraq, for example, if Bush approved of gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. Tell me, doesn't each issue deserve to stand on its own?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home