Dave,
When people talk about "voting," most of the time the context is in a national election, for president or senator or US rep. And in the context of a national election, a vote can be meaningless, and not voting can be a rational decision as far as I'm concerned.
When it comes to local elections, there is zero coverage. Literally zero. The only thing I ever see is a few people holding signs for their favorite Sheriff or councilman. You really have to seek out information on these candidates since there isn't any media coverage. The only thing to go by is party affiliation (which is one reason it is nice to have parties - at least party affiliation gives you _SOMETHING_ to go on when you are presented with choices among candidates you know absolutely nothing about).
So even here, it makes a lot of sense not to vote. Casting a meaningful vote means you know something about the choices in front of you. If you have no information, the act of voting becomes meaningless. You could argue that it is the voters duty to educate themselves, but I'm only partially swayed by this argument. It should be easier to get this kind of information. The media simply doesn't provide it, and it is a pain in the a** to dig it up yourself.
One of the nice things about living in Massachusetts is the ballot question primer that is sent around to everyone. All of the ballot questions are explained, with a synopsis of arguments in favor and opposed to their passage. It isn't the definitive source, but at least it gives you a good idea of what a YES or a NO vote will mean. Simple things like this could go a long way towards informing voters, especially on issues in local elections.
This is something I've heard Nader talk about, not so much during the 2000 campaign, but in general comments about democracy. Why are polls only open on Tuesday, a work day? Why not have voting over a week long period, so that people aren't caught being out of town or don't vote because they have a rough day at work? Let people go on a Saturday, when most people have the day off. Make it easier to register to vote. Send out voter information packs on all candidates (like MA does with the ballot questions). Things like that.
Brett
/ dave / wrote:
>>The very point that I've been trying to drive home is highlighted by your
comment above. The
should-be-plain-as-day fact is that, in a lot of cases, local contests are
as 'major' in
terms of their relevance to people's daily lives and their overall effects
as the more
visible national elections, if not moreso in many cases. Surely this can't
be news? We can
harp on all we want about the poor choices we have at the national level
and the 'big
issues' that may or may not divide the candidates, but all too often in a
local or community
election the choice can be between a complete moron or single-issue
demagogue and a
competent and engaged candidate who can actually get things done. This in
turn can have real
consequences for the community. Hence, all of the rhetoric about not voting
at all reads
like so much blinkered, un-nuanced foaming at the mouth if one claims to
take an interest in
improving things. There might well be obvious shoe-ins in various national
races, but if one
uses that as an excuse to mindlessly shrug off voting in key local
elections and ballot
initiatives and/or encourages others to do the same, one's credibility
diminishes fast.
It seems that what would be meaningful when engaging with the populace at large would be talking about why voting is largely ineffectual in many cases and contrasting that with situations where it can actually make a significant difference, rather than cavalierly propagating the notion that it's all a waste of time. And if people have grander notions of smashing the system, it ain't going to happen as long as the most we can can muster is a few broken windows for the CNN cameras. There are people sitting in board rooms who should be terrified of getting into their car at the end of the workday. That would be real progress.