Not that I'm trusting National Geographic for election coverage, but this was kind of interesting:
"Undecided" Voters' Minds Already Made Up, Study Says
It supports one of the bedrock ideas behind my attitude towards (and frustration with) Presidential campaigns: Undecided voters don't exist.
Well, they exist, certainly, but not in the numbers that this or any Presidential race would lead us to believe. Especially at a time when the country is so polarized, especially in an election between two fundamentally different candidates, I just don't believe that there are enough people out there who (a) are registered to vote (b) will actually leave their houses on election day, and (c) genuinely don’t know at this point which candidate or party they prefer, to make an inpact on the outcome of the party faithfuls’ vote. In order to be a true undecided in this day and age, you have to feel neutral about so many fundamental issues, like abortion, the economy, and Iraq. Neutral or apathetic, I suppose, and if you’re truly apathetic you’re not going make the effort to vote anyway.
I think that campaigns are (or should) be more about motivating people to actually vote than convincing them to choose you over the other guy. Understanding why your vote counts, how democracy works, and how important it is (how elected officials effect your day-to-day life, forexample) is a bi-(or non-)partisan issue. I was actually more excited about this aspect of Obama’s campaign – the fact that a record number of people voted in the primary, that he got demographics (blacks, young people) out to the polls who hadn’t been there before – than any other, but I feel like it’s been lost since the primaries.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Generally speaking I agree with your analysis. And I think that even the people who think they're undecided have actually already made up their minds, even if they don't know it.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe this grants insight to something I experienced and wrote about earlier, namely that undecideds I talked to weren't interested in hearing more on the issues, though this is probably also due in part to the fact that they figured I would only give them a politically spun version of the positions, a belief I can't blame them for.
I do wish, however, that I knew how many people there were who were undecided because they agree with each candidate on some issues, but disagree on others. Make no mistake, I am actively interested in securing Obama's victory, but I disagree with him on many issues. Now, most of these disagreements are with his stated economic positions, and that NYT article that got sent around indicated that he may be more of a free-marketeer than he lets on. But as it stands, I think his tax cut is (a little) too progressive, I want to see him cut corporate taxes (does this "corporate capital gains tax" he plans to cut even exist?), and above all, greatly reduce the amount of spending he's talking about putting into place. Last night's forum on service was even more evidence of the degree to which he is willing to spend our money. My understanding is the McCain's plan would be better for the national debt than Obama, and that can't be overlooked.
A friend once asked me how I justified weighing social issues like gay marriage equally against economic issues, that have real and large effects on all Americans. And if you take this viewpoint, it can be hard to vote for Obama over McCain. Me personally, my litmus test is that I've vowed to never vote for a candidate who sees the world as a fundamental struggle between good and evil. So I would not consider voting for McCain. But if I had to choose one wholesale economic plan or the other, I'd choose McCain's.
"Make no mistake, I am actively interested in securing Obama's victory, but I disagree with him on many issues."
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't completely agree with each problem you have - I like Obama's economic ideas, actually - the above statement is exactly how I feel. For me, though, it’s not really about Obama – I think Obama is a smart and genuinely good person, who understands the uniquely modern issues we’re facing right now and who does want to bring about systemic change in the government, which I’m all for (also I’m from Chicago and volunteered on his Senate campaign, so my loyalty to him was a bit of a given) – but with the Democratic party. In general, I support Democratic policies more than Republican ones, and really do think that a Democrat would be better for the country as a whole, but I don’t subscribe to many of the bedrock principals of the party platform (to be completely honest, there's a little bit of Libertarian in me yearning to be represented, which may tell you something about the issues I have with Democrats).
I think the entire polarized, 2-party system really isn't serving or representing the people the way it needs to. I'm waiting with bated breath for a truly viable (which, sadly, probably means independently wealthy) third-party candidate to come along and get enough attention to start the long , difficult, but (I believe) necessary process of creating an electoral field with more than 2 options. Maybe it'll be Bloomberg?
I agree with you a multi-party system would be better. I don't, however, think that a powerful/successful third-party candidate can do it, or even lay the groundwork.
ReplyDeleteIn an economics class, we studied it this way. Imagine a beach with an ice cream vendor. We'll make the beach a line, and so the vendor represents a point on that line.
Now, if a second ice cream vendor comes, who is exactly the same in all ways except his location on the line, you might expect that the first one may stand a third of the way down the beach, and the second would stand two thirds of the way down the beach.
------A------B------
Now we'll call the guy on the left Guy A. If he moves to the right, he can gain some of B's business that is in between them (assuming people always go to the closest cart) while retaining all of the business on his left. Likewise, Guy B will move to the right, and eventually they'll be standing next to each other, with half the beach on either side. This is how the two-party system goes, and also explains why people so often say there are no real differences between the parties.
------A------B------
--------A--B--------
---------AB---------
Finally, let's imagine a third vendor comes to the beach (we now must introduce the rule that a business will fail if it is unable to keep 50% of the business on the beach). There are two possibilities:
First, he can come in on the outside of the vendors. Let's say he comes in on the left, so we'll call him Guy S (for Socialist). If Guy A doesn't shift over toward the left quick enough, Guy S will capture all the extreme left and some in the middle, and then can move rightward until he drowns out Guy A but, importantly, will ultimately occupy the same position.
Second, he can come in between the two "vendors." This will push the other two to the extremes, until we have the same scenario as above. Ultimately, only two vendors remain, again.
Wow, that was way longer than I intended. There's one more contigency: say when the Socialist vendor comes in, that people on the beach shift to the left (i.e., there is a shift in ideology among the electorate) then the vendors won't move to the physical center of the beach (the mean voter) but to the population center of the beach (the median voter). Either way, same result, though they are now in a different location.
this makes me miss college.
ReplyDeleteAw, I didn't put you to sleep that quickly, did I? :)
ReplyDelete