Historic Victory

How Do You Vote?

OK, so maybe many of you have already voted since most states now have early voting as an option. But just how did/do you vote? I'm not really asking for whom you vote(d) but rather how did you did/do it? And I'm not asking if you use butterfly ballots, optical scan, or electronic voting machines. What I really want to know is how do you decide who you are going to vote for, who not to vote for, and what criteria do you use? Does gender,race , or religion matter to you? If so how much and why? Do you vote a straight party line, a mixed bag favoring one party, or do you always vote for the candidate and not the party. How much does an individual's charisma, personality or looks count? Are you an issue voter, and if so just one issue or multiple issues?

I don't think that there is any perfect way to vote so long as you feel confident that you have good, well-thought out reasons. I like to do what I can to be a savvy voter so I do do some research before I enter the voting booth. I think that is important to consider all along the campaign season what issues are important to you and do some thinking about how you see and understand the world. I think it is good going into the voting process with at least some ideas and maybe an thought out ideological framework. At any rate, simply knowing what issues matter most to you and understanding some basic things about how government and the world works are important steps before voting.

I discourage people from becoming single issue voters who only care about one thing because that generally means they have not thought about the other issue positions and how it might have real negative impact. When it comes to candidates you've never heard of before or issues you know nothing about, you may choose simply not to vote for these issues or candidates.
Voting a straight party ticket is at least ideologically consistent but to this day I don't think that I have ever entirely done that. I prefer to sit down and look at a candidate's education and professional experience and compare them also weighing other factors such as candidates' specific policy proposals (if any are available), their endorsements, and their answers to surveys and any debate questions (once again, if there are any). Party affiliations do matter to me because they often help identify some basic things that the candidates believe or value. However, I think that a person's political party rarely should be a sole reason to support or oppose a candidate because there can be a great degree of variety within political parties so it warrants that good voters do some independent research. I always like to keep informed all the way up to an election so I watch, listen to, and read news stories in a number of different daily venues. I think it is good to follow the news even in non-election year cycles.

Lastly, I look into what/who will be on my own ballot and do some research. I turn to resources such as Project Vote Smart,Politics1,and other helpful resources such as the Plain Dealers super helpful voter guide. Other resources are your local board of elections, candidates' websites, and local media such as your newspaper's editorial pages (online or in print). Just because a newspaper has endorsed a certain candidate doesn't mean you should take it at face value since they have their own criteria which you may not agree with, however you should at least read it to see their reasoning. Go online and look for any good information you can find because your vote is precious and it does count. You don't need to be an expert, just make sure that you are confident and conscientiously understand why you are or are not voting for a candidate or issue. Just don't give up and don't forget to vote.

I Have Issues

I do not normally intend on spending a lot of time explicitly endorsing candidates or issues but this one is important in my estimation. There has been a barrage of slick and costly advertising on Ohio TVs and newspapers over the last couple of months trying to convince Ohioans to vote against issue 5. They would have you believe that the issue would kill thousands of "good paying" Ohio jobs, restrict personal freedom, and threaten your personal information. It almost seems as if those with the campaign against this issue would wrap it up in any lie or associate it with anything and everything bad under the sun as long as they could persuade you to vote no. For those of you who don't know, Issue 5 is a referendum on the ballot that would approve legislation that has already passed in Ohio's General Assembly with strong bipartisan support. The legislation that Issue 5 backs puts a cap on the amount of excessive interest that payday lenders can charge at 28% (down from as high as 391%!). So guess who is behind all of this advertising against Issue 5? THE PAYDAY LENDERS! Voting for Issue 5 would not destroy the payday lending industry in Ohio as most of them have already applied for the a state licenses to operate under the new law's 28% APR cap. Of course they would still earn a profit under the new law.

Voting for Issue 5 is an important step in helping troubled consumers avoid the cycle of exploitative debt that many payday borrowers find themselves in too late. Earlier in their campaign, the payday lenders ran a TV ad with a farmer (actually an actor) explaining how he occasionally uses payday loans for his farming business and that Issue 5 would somehow hurt him. The ad was ridiculous. Among those who support Issue 5 is The Ohio Farm Bureau (along with the AARP, Habitat for Humanity, the Ohio Roundtable and the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio). Issue 5 has broad support among statewide and local politicians, clergy, nonprofits, and the business community. Voting for Issue 5 is the right thing to do. Now is the time to stand up and stop lenders from gouging the poor before we let it get too far just like predatory sub prime mortgage lending.

Campaign Developments

First of all, I want to acknowledge the relatively large amount of time since I last posted anything on this blog. I almost had to start dusting off the various parts of this blog before coming back to it, since it has been so long. The reasons I haven’t posted anything for such a long time are manifold. But basically I’ve been busy and haven’t had anything that I find myself absolutely burning to write about. That and I don’t feel like writing about the obvious or wasting my time saying something that portrays me as shallow or as merely copying an article I’ve read or something I’ve heard. This blog was born of academic roots so I felt that nothing of surface politics, simple preference or conjecture were appropriate or worthy writing.

That said there are a few things that have been on my mind over the last month or so. One thing in particular has been the rhetoric of this campaign. That both campaigns are now choosing to unify behind the rhetoric of “change” is either amusing or frustrating depending upon how you view it. The following are perhaps two very different ways of seeing it:
“Thank goodness both parties are finally agreeing on something and now we are entering a Utopian phase of agreement, bipartisanship, and sound decision making.”
OR
“Wow. Now that one candidate has found success with a particular theme, the other candidate is quickly and desperately trying to copy that theme (minus most of the substance contained within it) out of political necessity.”
Hmmm…??? Well I will let you decide.

But speaking of politicians claiming to rise above politics and offer change, it seems both candidates have promised much and delivered little.
Both candidates have pledged a different sort of campaign and a different sort of presidency. Well, how well have they done? Both Barack Obama and John McCain, pledged supporters of campaign finance reform (getting the influence of money out of politics), have promised to try to accept public financing and the stricter rules and limits for private money that accompany them. Both candidates have been important champions of campaign finance legislation (the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill and Obama instrumental in passing the strongest campaign finance bill in Illinois history). But Barack Obama broke with his earlier intentions and decided not to accept public financing, citing the massive amount of influence coming from “Swiftboat” style campaigns financed by Political Action Committees (PACs) that are much, much less controlled by such legislation. He may have a very valid point, but he still comes across disingenuous to some. Many will point out that by rejecting public financing he can raise more money privately which might give him a better chance of winning.

Secondly, one candidate promised to run a positive campaign different than those of the past. Yet, as he has fallen in polls and become more desperate, he has become increasingly more negative, dishonest, and has started to show signs of playing on the politics of fear. Because John McCain has been less inspiring (leading to diminished fundraising), he was hoping that he could cancel the already agreed upon set of debates and kick-start his campaign if Obama would agree to numerous townhall-style debates (a style that McCain feels more comfortable in). When Obama refused, McCain seemed to have become more desperate by reaching for stunts, tricks, and gimmicks to try to gain leverage whenever he doesn’t get his way. When he was down in the polls and Republicans didn’t like his preferred VP choices, he acted like a “maverick” and choose someone unknown and unexpected, who very conservative party members happen to love (there goes that whole “maverick” to his own party thing). He has continued to become more negative and erratic in his campaign decisions. Reaching for some ploy to help, he suspended his campaign (if you can call what he did suspension) and tried to use the financial crisis as a photo-op, jockeying to take credit for a bailout that his presence couldn’t help pass. (Read Wall Street Journal Article)

(Caution: the following video is rated TV-14. While some will find it mild, discretion is advised.)

But even more troubling than all of this to me has been Gov. Sarah Palin. She has been used as a wedge to try to peel women (perhaps Hillary supporters) from Obama. She also seems to have been used as a wedge for people on numerous culture war issues relating to faith, race, and class. It may be that she was chosen, at least in part, for her ability to subtly re-interject each of issue of identity politics back into the campaign. She may be supposed to represent the woman, the Christian, the middle-class smalltowner whose folksiness might serve especially to remind you just how different “that one” (McCain-speak referencing Obama) is from your average less elite educated white person. Even more troubling to me has been her apparently shaky grasp of some policy issues and most especially a particular comment that she made during her debate against Joe Biden. I sincerely hope that she doesn’t really want to expand the powers of the Vice Presidency beyond the scope of article one, section three of the Constitution that Biden references. Watch her comment:

And so altogether, while both sides have there faults, I think polls are accurately beginning to signal real division that people are noticing in terms of policy, substance, and style. It can be tiring listening to both candidates avoid serious issues or going negative, but contained within all of the strategy are some helpful hints and cues to each candidate’s temperament, style, and character. The policies are much more important but that can be researched independently, more quantifiably, and in print (I don’t feel much like talking about that now) and what is left over is style and character.

I think that both Presidential debates were pretty close and even, depending upon how you look at it, so they haven’t changed the race that much. Some are giving Obama the first two debates, but there certainly were no resounding victories. I think that I will talk about the specific of the policy and the debates another time.