For
the thirty-four years, throughout my police career, I voted as an
Independent. My reasoning was a
nonpartisan position could not be associated with being politically
biased. It worked.
I
have learned the political affiliations we create in our lives influence our
decisions, our social relationships and our quality of life. Certain beliefs we adhere to through our
environment and experiences will form our ideology. As an independent it was easier to read the newspaper and
whenever a political scandal erupted it was nice not to have the
affiliation. I also learned that
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” one-party rule is just that. A two party system is the watchdog that
keeps the wolves at bay. The rules of
hierarchy in politics dictate that second best is not in control but they are
looking for the event that will put them in control. Control, is the goal for political gain.
There
are several political parties, with only two giants in the room. Hardly a giant in Massachusetts, the
Republicans are 11% of the voters.
Democrats are 39% and independent noncommittal voters account for 50%. About half of everything that happens in
life from relationships, work, religion and politics is noncommittal. When we read this we reject the premise that
noncommittal voting is lacking responsibility and deference to good
government. Studying voters around us
we can analyze how committed they are and for what duration, it is usually
dependent on needs, their needs.
Continuing
the same process without getting our hands dirty. Assessing the government we get is the parody of effective
voting.
Sitting
on a fence it is easier to switch pastures if the grass looks a little greener
in the other fellow’s yard. The problem
arises when the grass can look greener but the eventual flavor might not be of
our liking. The political parties have
figured this and just rely on the independents to be very fickle. Raise the “Problem de Jour” and see how many
take the bait without research. They
raise the premise of a “War on Women” they know the fickle vote is not one of
reason, mostly spontaneity. The
independent vote empowers Democratic control, as 61% of Massachusetts cannot
stand united.
It
is not a wonder that so many government programs are never terminated after
decades of substantiated failure. Fifty
percent of the voters are not committed to eliminating corruption. The benefits of voting non-committal are
minimal and for influencing governmental change. When the outcome depends on a fickle opinion how strong can it
be? Change should come about only when
there are two closely viable entities vying for the same control. The only thing that disrupts government more
is the apathetic nonvoter, the epitome of a depressed government, “You can‘t
blame me, I didn’t vote.” Now, is that
a convoluted conclusion? Inspiration
for change would be new candidates with 11% participation there is little
incentive. Primaries are the tickle
processes we use; enough agitation from a loud ideology and the platform of the
party will change. Why? The apathetic nonvoter relinquishes and the
fickle voter guarantees the process.
How
many people know what an independent voter actually has for benefits? Only one, I know of, they can determine what
primary they vote in. Some consider it two chances of eliminating the candidate
they do not want to run against the person they want to win. I’ve never heard
it was successful.
The
Independent’s voting ballot is the same as everyone’s in the general election,
with the same choices. Independents alone, voting without commitment, may
readily be part of the problem and not the solution. Apathetic voters are suppressed not to vote by choice. So, there we have it, apathy and fickleness
determine our governmental process and then we criticize the result. How many think it was a hard fought, honest
campaign that brought us our leadership?
Wouldn’t it be nice?
No comments:
Post a Comment