There has been a lot of punditry in the last couple of days about the elections in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, etc. Perhaps a question is whether you all think these mean something, or whether any kind of interpretation across elections is bound to be inaccurate.
On a related note, the Boulder elections returned three incumbent city council members, defeated proposals to bond for more open space, and extended term limits for the district attorney (among others).
8 comments:
I've heard quite a few news stories about the elections in Boulder and how voters turned down additional funding for open spaces etc. I think the issue, whether it be in Boulder or anywhere else, is that people don't understand what they're voting for. There is a lack of information and communication between residents and the people they are voting for. In order to have a successful voter turnout and get new people into office, there needs to be more of an effort to clarify information so that people understand what they're reading and can decide how they feel about it. Otherwise, as we've seen this past week, people won't vote or they'll unexpectedly vote down new bills.
I disagree that people are misinformed about what they are voting for, especially in Boulder. The Daily Camera and the Colorado Daily Newspapers both printed extended adds about who and what issues were at stake. 1/3 of Boulder residents voted. With that said, the people who voted obviously voted because they were passionate about something. They didn't vote just to vote. There is also a catalog that Boulder County publishes to educate its citizens on what issues are at hand. Saying that people don't know what they are voting for does not make sense in any way.
Kelton,
Availability of information does not in any way guarantee it's understanding or acceptance. Widely dispersed, but poorly understood information is insignificant to overcome collective action problems.
On one hand I think the idea of the uneducated voter is a bit overused, yet alternatively a number of individuals do go vote so as to give their opinion on a single issue and only to quickly pick and choose their opinion on the other topics that may be presented.
I haven't followed the northeast elections much but I doubt they are acting as a crystal ball for Obama. How can we be not even one year into his term and people are already talking about a national swing towards conservatism?
This is a very important and telling election result that should be studied intently by any democrat running for re-election in 2010. President Obama overplayed his cards in taking the election as an over-whelming nation-wide desire for socialist changes. This is obviously wrong. With New Jersey and Virginia Electing republican candidates for the first time in a decade is very interesting. The nation is obviously not ready or willing for fundamental changes and are not in favor of higher taxes and larger deficits.
I think a big part of this whole shift in ideal is related to recession. Whenever we have less money than we used to we tend to freak out and try to hold onto what we have. Fical conservatism is undoudtedly favorable to the masses in times like these.
I agree with Kylie. It is important to educate voters not only about the importance of voting, but also of the issues that they are voting on. I also agree with David that many people go to the polls to vote on a couple of issues and then decide to quickly make a decision on the others. We should encourage voters to only vote on issues that they have a full understanding of.
I think: and i approach all voting with this angle, is that candiates should be faceless, nameless, etc. such that people can ONLY vote on the issues, and stances, rather than popular images / incumbancy, and therefore provide a more accurate representation of the true desires of the people, and less of the easily swayed / over paid political ad campaign tactics we see today. Just a thought. Is someone buying your popularity vote????
Post a Comment