COLUMN: Uninformed people shouldn’t vote in November

James Peterson Columnist

This republic established by the blueprint of the Constitution is a beautiful thing. The citizens’ right to vote in elections allows us to provide peaceful feedback to what the government is doing. This is the reason our government works so well … or better than most other governments.

The ruling government, while given the freedom to direct the country where it thinks we ought to go, can never stray too far from the people’s interest, lest the people elect another government. It’s like a hand being able to tell the brain to let go of a red-hot firebrand.

The critical factor in this equation is the interest of the people. In a country this large, it is not hard to find good people. Yes, that’s right — it is not hard. It is only hard to elect them when the people’s interest in the government wanes. Then, leaders are elected by style, not substance. Things tend to go to crap under these circumstances. The hand has fallen asleep and no longer minds when it gets placed into a container full of used needles.

It’s kind of like current day Washington, D.C.

There are a lot of “grass roots” organizations trying to combat declining interest in politics by getting more people to vote. Even MTV is doing its part with the “Choose or Lose” campaign. Of course, MTV has the ulterior motive of getting more clueless 20-somethings to vote in order to help its guys get elected.

All the while, these groups knowingly work under the false assumption that decreasing voter turnout is the cause for our politicians’ ineptitude and give those who vote (who vote randomly for all intents and purposes) a sense of accomplishment. In this case, they are treating the symptoms to further hide the disease. Continuing the metaphor, they’re numbing the hand to the pricks of the needles.

The problem with those who are apathetic toward politics is not when they stay home during an election but when they vote. The apathetic, uninformed voter can easily fall on either side of the fence, depending on the emotions of the voter.

When he or she votes in excess of the informed voters, candidates are selected by the equivalent of a coin toss.

From personal experience, there are that plenty of liberals who are convinced President Bush is recklessly cutting the federal budgets. Of course, he isn’t. Any conservative is pained to admit quite the opposite. This is a perfect example of people who emotionally label a person or party and then believe and vote accordingly. When a lot of people vote for or against Bush based solely on their feelings toward him (e.g. Democrats say he’s evil; Republicans say he’s a saint), then that effectively dilutes those who vote based on important things.

Given this, is it any wonder that presidential politics have been so evenly divided for the last four years? Not really.

This random selection is what causes the disconnect between what we want (good people) and what we get (Hillary Clinton).

So how do we fix things in politics? Simple really — go out and don’t vote. That’s right, don’t vote. An uninformed vote is most easily eliminated when people simply don’t vote. It is too difficult and impractical to eliminate it the other way through diligent research.

So the next time you’re in the voting booth, only vote for those candidates that you know a significant amount about. If that’s no one, than you have some research to do if you want to vote for anyone the next time.

A good place to start is www.votesmart.org.