THE CANDIDATES for the Democratic presidential ticket made headlines last week despite what has become an ongoing battle for any press coverage. Unfortunately, The Washington Post chose to devote space to an account of the candidates' visit to the Iowa State Fair ("At Iowa's State Fair, A Political Circus" August 17). Washington Post staff writer Mark Leibovich recounted the attempts of seven of the candidates to capture the market of the Regular Guy. Will this election be decided by who looks more natural eating a corndog? The standards with which Americans increasingly decide how to cast their votes are often irrelevant. It's unfeasible to try to officially restrict the franchise, but we should at least encourage ignorant voters to stay away from the polls.
The most valid reason for choosing a president is his stance on the issues: big government vs. small government, tax cuts vs. tax hikes, pro-life vs. pro-choice, etc. And sure, it becomes important to throw in other less tangible considerations like intelligence, leadership, strength of character and so forth. But in the past 50 years Americans have felt less of a need than ever to properly research and understand their candidates.
We're living in a media generation, where advances in technology, particularly television, let the voter in on the true secrets behind what makes a good leader: charisma and likeability. The wonders of video equipment allow the modern voter to employ rationale, "Wow, Edwards sure looks nice in his suits" or "Gee, Lieberman and his wife really get along, he must be a great guy." Or in the recent instance of the huge press coverage of the Iowa State Fair, "Dean didn't finish his deep-fried Twinkie -- cross him of the ballot." Votes get thrown in any direction under this system. And often they get thrown away.
Consider further that our country is one which a major motion picture star has a legitimate shot at becoming the next governor of California. If he wins it will be because of his straight white teeth, internet fan base, and a stature that says, "Don't mess with my constituents." And if he loses, it won't be on his lack of political expertise. No, Arnold will be judged on the same criteria as all other members of the political arena. He will lose because he isn't articulate enough, he's got a funny accent, and he's too stiff to look comfortable on Leno or at the California State Fair (if the state can afford one).
There are already enough people ignorantly casting votes along arbitrary lines. Many vote automatically for a member of the same race, gender or geographical region. Even more common, though somewhat more rational, voters line up with their chosen political party. The intra-party race for a presidential candidate removes even that safety net for the voters. This leaves the majority of voters dependent on either doing their own research to make an informed decision or taking the easy route and evaluating the images the press throws around on less merited bases.
Ideally, an election would be run on a much more objective basis. Some third party would lay out the facts about each candidate and each voter would read it before swearing an affidavit of enlightenment upon completion. But thanks to freedom of the press and a limited campaign finance reform, that's something of an impossibility. Running a campaign is like marketing any product, and some candidates will prove better at it than others. Americans cannot be forced to make their decisions be informed ones, but maybe we shouldn't be shoving them off to the polls.
Politicians like to complain about American voter apathy. In any given election, huge portions of possible voters fail to take advantage of their right to vote. And if enough people don't go out to the polls, then this isn't a legitimate democracy. But a vote must be more than just a hole in a ballot -- it must represent an opinion. Otherwise, winning elections become little more than a manner of which candidate can herd the most sheep in the disguise of people into the voter booths to cast a pre-programmed vote. The election process should not be merely about body count, it is a matter of listening to the demands of the pubic. There is a rationale behind children not being allowed to vote -- they are incapable of making rational decisions. Yet there are millions of adults are out there showing that the bar on enfranchisement needs to include more than just an age limit.
The one political decision that the average citizen gets to make is electing a representative, yet we chose to waste our vote on the guy who supports our favorite basketball team. This means, voters, you should take an hour to look at the issue behind who has the most genuine smile on the Ferris Wheel and who chokes down the cotton candy with the least grimacing. And then, and only then, go and cast your vote.
If you don't care enough to make your vote mean something, then please, don't make it at all.
(Kimberly Liu is a Cavalier Daily columnist. She can be reached at kliu@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 6 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
