So, as the primaries approach in Iowa, I thought I would take up on one of my favorite agenda topics: voting.
...
Before everybody thinks they know what I am going to say, let me say this, "Relax, I'm not going partisan today."
When I think of voting (and all its attendant woes, both in choice and influence), I recall some peoples' conclusions in 2008 when we (supposedly) had such bad choices. In such a situation--when people assert their choice to be only the lesser of two evils--they start to get frustrated with the whole idea of voting and would rather forgo it. I can hardly tell you what I feel when I hear of this reaction.
But, I will keep myself under control.
Practically needless to say, there are never only two choices in any election. (However, the assumption is just one more reason why I loath the two party system.) Usually, there are a handful of minor parties with candidates who often may capture our ideas better but who are also so highly unlikely to win, we think it is unwise to vote for them or that it is a vote for the guy we really want to stop from winning.
Not only that, there are also all those independents the media keeps trumping up (by alternately almost never mentioning the minor party candidates).
Besides, one can always enter an alternate name in the ballot--someone who is not even on the list. You could vote for Stephen Hawking, Rick Warren, George Clooney, Jason the Awesome... the possibilities are endless.
Yes, there is no excuse for complaining that there is no one to vote for.
So, please don't let me hear this year, in two years, or any time, that there is no point in voting because of the choices. Actually, I believe (and dare to express this belief) that it is the duty of every eligible American citizen to vote.
I realize that the primaries are only just now coming on us. Things are not quite that desperate yet (assuming they ever are to begin with). Perhaps, though, if people vote now in the primaries, they might have some choices in the fall.
Worth thinking about.
Maybe next time, I should talk about the difference between a smart vote and a needing-more-thought vote. Heh heh.
While I plan to vote, I don't think I can go so far (any more) as to say, "it is the duty of every American citizen to vote."
ReplyDeletePrivilege, yes.
Duty, no.
As an American, I reserve the right to shirk my duty, as stated in the First Amendment, whereby my non-voting is a Freedom-of-speech statement in itself, albeit a quiet one.
But seriously, I respect the conviction of some Christians who would feel that separation from the world could well include non-voting. Other than obeying laws that would require the paying of taxes (Matt. 22:21), and a general admonition to pray for and respect/abide by the authorities above us, I don't see a Biblical mandate for extensive involvement in the government.
There is that instance where Peter stated, "We must obey God, rather than men!" (Acts 5:29) But since our country neither mandates non-voting, voting, or even specifically who to vote for, it would seem there is no inherent spiritual conflict with our country's laws.
And while there is certainly a case to be made for being "salt and light" in a dark and sinful world, I would suggest that each believer must abide by their convictions on the question of voting and/or involvement in government.
As an interesting aside, today is the anniversary of Patrick Henry's death. Patrick Henry...who was against replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
I mention this because I find it interesting that so many conservative Christians appear to hold the Constitution to be a sacred writing, just below biblical status. And along with that view of the Constitution, a very "get involved!" frame of mind
I had a lovely reply... then I moved away from this page to sign in.
ReplyDeleteAlas, I lost it all.
I may write it up again...