COLUMN: Voting for change
Since the November 3 elections, political analysts have been hard at work trying to decipher just exactly what the results mean.
In several big races, including the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, the Republican candidates scored major victories against Democrats. Republicans seem greatly encouraged by the outcome claiming the vote was a statement of opposition to the Obama administration.
I hope that is not the case.
Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of the current administration, but a person who goes into a voting booth and casts a ballot for a candidate just because they are running against a particular individual or party should have their voter registration revoked.
Voting for change just for change’s sake is a bad idea.
Look at last year’s presidential election. The majority of the electorate voted for “change you can believe in.” Now, many cannot believe the changes that have transpired. Locally, Barrow County voters chose to “clean the slate.” In both cases, the outcome seemed to reflect the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the current administrations more so than agreement with the winning candidate’s positions.
No matter what your opinion may be of Barack Obama or Danny Yearwood, there is no doubt that both are certainly changes from those previously in office. Whether either is actually an improvement depends on who you ask.
That is the problem with voting for change.
While I prefer to believe that most voters take the time to learn about a candidate and their stance on the issues, I suspect there are plenty who do not.
Did voters in last year’s Presidential election vote for Obama or against Bush? How many Obama supporters knew or even cared where John McCain stood on the issues or vice versa?
Here in Barrow County, did voters choose Yearwood for his positions and his credentials or would they have voted for anyone running against Garrison? What about district 3 commissioner Bill Healan? Did voters cast him out of office because of how he performed his job or simply because he was a Democrat?
Every voter has the responsibility to learn about all the candidates in a race and vote for the one best suited for the office. Just because a candidate is different from the one currently in office does not mean they will be better. Just because a candidate is from a different party than the incumbent does not mean that they will be an improvement.
With the 2010 campaign season now underway, it is time decide what is important. Is it the issues or is it party affiliation? Will you choose a candidate based on their plans for the future or will you simply vote against the person currently in office?
Here in Georgia, our next big decision will come in July. In the gubernatorial race alone, there are currently six major candidates vying for the Republican nomination and five for the top spot on the Democratic ticket. We have over eight months to learn about the candidates in this and other primary races.
Each of us has a responsibility to cast our votes wisely even if the best choice we can make is the lesser of two or more evils. We may have little control over who runs for office, but we have complete control over who gets elected.
Our politicians make decisions that affect our lives in a myriad of ways – decisions that can change our lives, our finances, our freedoms and more. It is imperative to be well informed about the issues and the candidates. The last thing we need is change just for the sake of change. What we need is change for the better.
I hope that is not the case.
Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of the current administration, but a person who goes into a voting booth and casts a ballot for a candidate just because they are running against a particular individual or party should have their voter registration revoked.
Voting for change just for change’s sake is a bad idea.
Look at last year’s presidential election. The majority of the electorate voted for “change you can believe in.” Now, many cannot believe the changes that have transpired. Locally, Barrow County voters chose to “clean the slate.” In both cases, the outcome seemed to reflect the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the current administrations more so than agreement with the winning candidate’s positions.
No matter what your opinion may be of Barack Obama or Danny Yearwood, there is no doubt that both are certainly changes from those previously in office. Whether either is actually an improvement depends on who you ask.
That is the problem with voting for change.
While I prefer to believe that most voters take the time to learn about a candidate and their stance on the issues, I suspect there are plenty who do not.
Did voters in last year’s Presidential election vote for Obama or against Bush? How many Obama supporters knew or even cared where John McCain stood on the issues or vice versa?
Here in Barrow County, did voters choose Yearwood for his positions and his credentials or would they have voted for anyone running against Garrison? What about district 3 commissioner Bill Healan? Did voters cast him out of office because of how he performed his job or simply because he was a Democrat?
Every voter has the responsibility to learn about all the candidates in a race and vote for the one best suited for the office. Just because a candidate is different from the one currently in office does not mean they will be better. Just because a candidate is from a different party than the incumbent does not mean that they will be an improvement.
With the 2010 campaign season now underway, it is time decide what is important. Is it the issues or is it party affiliation? Will you choose a candidate based on their plans for the future or will you simply vote against the person currently in office?
Here in Georgia, our next big decision will come in July. In the gubernatorial race alone, there are currently six major candidates vying for the Republican nomination and five for the top spot on the Democratic ticket. We have over eight months to learn about the candidates in this and other primary races.
Each of us has a responsibility to cast our votes wisely even if the best choice we can make is the lesser of two or more evils. We may have little control over who runs for office, but we have complete control over who gets elected.
Our politicians make decisions that affect our lives in a myriad of ways – decisions that can change our lives, our finances, our freedoms and more. It is imperative to be well informed about the issues and the candidates. The last thing we need is change just for the sake of change. What we need is change for the better.
What a superb example of "if you don't think like I do, then you shouldn't be able to do anything" arrogance.
If someone in office is SO BAD that regardless of who is running against them, people will vote for the opposition just to get someone else into the position, and if YOU had YOUR way, those voters wouldn't have the right to vote AGAINST the current office holder???
It is no wonder that our country seems to be going through so much trouble when people who think like you do can get into positions to spew their poison out to the populaton and nobody does a thing to stop it.