|
|
David Spates I prefer my stirrups to be ad-free Unless you're one of the fat-cat lawyers charging
25 personal billable hours a day at $700 per, there haven't been
too many good things to come from the election debacle. Faith
in "the system" is at a new low, once-devoted supporters
on both sides of the fence can be heard saying, "I don't
care anymore -- I just wish it was over," and no one can
figure out why ultra-rich Palm Beach didn't purchase electronic
voting machines decades ago. Pretty soon one man will pack his bags for
Washington, and the other will begin scheduling a college speaking
tour at $50,000 a whack as he bides his time until 2004 when,
he promises himself, he won't ignore his home state. (I'll leave
it to you to decide which man to call "loser" in that
scenario.) The one positive to come from this is that
no one will be able to claim that his vote doesn't matter. People
are going to remember this for generations. This is the sort
of thing that makes it onto the timelines you find in high school
history books. Like 1492, 1776, 1861-'65, 1941 and 1969, I predict
2000 will be one of those years forever associated with a major
event in U.S. history. It's a big deal, to say the least. No one will be able to say, with a straight
face, that he won't bother voting because his vote doesn't really
matter. The only retort required to debunk such a ridiculous
statement will be, "Florida in 2000." On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if bringing
more people to the polls is always a good thing. There are two
reasons people don't bother to vote. Either they aren't familiar
with the issues nor the candidates and are unable to make a distinction
between Choice A and Choice B, or they simply don't care. Either
way, I'd prefer it if those kinds of people didn't vote. Why
should their uninformed or apathetic vote negate mine when I
take the time to consider the issues? I say if you aren't informed or don't care
enough to make a meaningful choice then who needs you? Leave
the future of the country up to those of us who actually have
an interest and who make the effort to understand what's important.
I'd hate to think that votes were being cast for a particular
candidate for no other reason than the color of his tie or because
his name was the first one on the list. Mike Moser, the editor of our paper, told
me that folks in New Zealand are required by law to vote. While
that certainly is one way to up your election turnout, it removes
what I consider to be a fundamental right in any democratic society
-- the right not to choose. As the saying goes, if you choose
not to decide you still have made a choice. I would prefer the
stupid and lazy stay home on Election Day. So I guess you could say I'm torn, to some
degree, about the closeness of the presidential race. I'm happy
that it so vividly demonstrates how one person's vote can make
a huge difference, but I hope it doesn't inspire herds of uninformed
and essentially passive people to cast votes based on an endorsement
from the always forward-thinking Backstreet Boys. Decision-making like that scares me. If you're going to base your vote on the recommendation of a performer, at least go with one who plays an instrument. Otherwise, just vote for the guy who's taller. If that doesn't suit you, there's always the clincher: vote for the candidate with the best hair. |