Tag Archive: Voting


Debates Take 2

Last night I watched about 15 minutes of the Presidential debates before I wisely walked away before I could start hating both candidates to the point of total voter apathy. In those 15 minutes (somewhere in the middle when they were talking about immigration) I observed a few things.
* Obama literally got 2x as long to answer the same question without being interrupted. (I’m told Romney was allowed to go over earlier but I didn’t see it) What is the point of a moderator if they aren’t going to moderate?

*Both candidates making stupid smug faces while the other is talking and attempting to interrupt the other.

*Both candidates and the moderator all talking at once, over each other, all seeming like spoiled children screaming for attention.

*Both candidates pointing out technicalities rather than facing the actual questions or issues.

 

From the very little I saw, I got a better impression of Romney, but that is probably because Obama blatantly disregarding the time limit went against all things that speech forensics in high school taught me. To me both of them seemed to be acting rather childish and the moderator seemed to have lost ALL control of the situation. This is pretty much exactly why I refuse to actually sit and watch these debates in full. I would rather actually figure out the grand picture of what a candidate wants to do rather than the “safe” talking points and petty accusations that seem to be the only purpose of these debates anymore.

 

 

In closing I will leave you with a Facebook post that a friend posted about the current state of the debates. I couldn’t agree with his idea more:

I would like to propose a new style of presidential debate- one where the candidates describe their policy positions in-depth, contrast them with their opponent’s policies, and avoid ad-hominem attacks and pandering to the base. We will call it The Smart People’s Debate and it can be broadcast via NPR so the idiots can’t find it. When obfuscation and avoidance become the political norm we must ask ourselves: who do our politicians really work for? Who are they hiding their opinions and ideas from and why?

 

Advertisements

Who Should Get to Vote?

Lately there has been a lot of hoopla surrounding a few states that have started to enact voter ID laws. To me the issue boils down to a very simple question; ‘Who should get to vote?’ We have several supreme court cases that fairly definitively answer that any US citizen who has not lost their voting rights due to criminal activity should be allowed to vote. Thus we have to determine if voter ID laws really prevent citizens from voting?

Personally I can only think of 2 reasons that requiring a photo ID to vote might actually be preventative for citizens. 1) it generally costs a fee to receive a photo ID, and 2) some people can not have a photo ID due to religious reasons. I don’t think that you should have to violate your religion to vote, but I think that if you were to bring the same documents that it would take to get an ID (proof of citizenship and residency) you should be allowed to vote. Also if a state is going to require an ID for voting, they need to provide some sort of ID for free to citizens for the purpose of voting.

 

Beyond the previously mentioned issues, I see no problem with requiring someone to show reasonable proof that they are a citizen to be able to vote. Requiring someone to show that they are eligible for a right is much different in my eyes from preventing them for exercising that right.