Electioneering
As I hope you know, it is Election Day tomorrow. If you don't know where to vote, you should find out.
I certainly have my personal preference as to who will win, which I will tell you, but even if you disagree, make sure you get to the polls and express your opinion. And before you do that, get some information on what you will be voting on.
The most significant race is obviously for governor. I'm not a fan of either Doyle or Green. Neither one is going to do anything to keep tuition from rising more. Green is more likely to push for more development of nuclear power, which gives him a slight edge to me, a nuclear engineering student. But I may still write in for no one.
Both candidates for State AG are competent. I think Van Hollen's experience as US Attorney makes him a little more qualified.
Baldwin and Kohl will both be re-elected. So no matter how much you may say they haven't done anything for the state, it doesn't matter. I can not vote for Magnum, but I may vote Green against Kohl.
And that brings us to the referendums. One for the reinstatement of the death penalty, one defining marriage as only between a man and a women. I find it interesting that neither one will actually do anything themselves. The death penalty referendum is only advisory, it will not change current law. The marriage amendment also will not change existing law preventing same sex marriage, but if it passes it will prevent the courts from eventually declaring the existing law as unconstitutional.
I really have never seen any good argument for the death penalty. Every single point for it can be disproven. So I would prefer to err on the side of not killing someone. That's just me.
For the marriage amendment, I will also vote no. Being a fan of non-discrimination, I do not like seeing age, sex, or race being written into laws. The gender-neutral policy of allowing any two people to marry is fine with me. The problem is that everyone still thinks of marriage in a religious context. Churches can still define their sacraments however they wish. But a legal marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals and the state, allowing for the combination of property, the transfer of medical decisions, child custody issues, and various other legal aspects. It may not be very romantic, but that's what it is. And there is absolutely no reason why two men or two women in a committed relationship should be treated differently than a man and a women. As long as no one is going to force me to marry a man, I say leave the government out of this issue.
I've given my opinions here, but that's all they are. They aren't facts or orders. You are free to vote for what you wish. Again, just make sure you vote. Even if you hate all the candidates, just go and write in no one for every race. Not voting for anyone and voting for no one are two very different things. The first expresses apathy, the second disapproval. If instead of not voting, people voted for no one, then there would be no candidate with a winning majority, and then the system will have to be changed.
And if anyone was wondering, although I am not officially running for any office this election, feel free to write in a vote for Dorshorst for any race as a protest vote.
I certainly have my personal preference as to who will win, which I will tell you, but even if you disagree, make sure you get to the polls and express your opinion. And before you do that, get some information on what you will be voting on.
The most significant race is obviously for governor. I'm not a fan of either Doyle or Green. Neither one is going to do anything to keep tuition from rising more. Green is more likely to push for more development of nuclear power, which gives him a slight edge to me, a nuclear engineering student. But I may still write in for no one.
Both candidates for State AG are competent. I think Van Hollen's experience as US Attorney makes him a little more qualified.
Baldwin and Kohl will both be re-elected. So no matter how much you may say they haven't done anything for the state, it doesn't matter. I can not vote for Magnum, but I may vote Green against Kohl.
And that brings us to the referendums. One for the reinstatement of the death penalty, one defining marriage as only between a man and a women. I find it interesting that neither one will actually do anything themselves. The death penalty referendum is only advisory, it will not change current law. The marriage amendment also will not change existing law preventing same sex marriage, but if it passes it will prevent the courts from eventually declaring the existing law as unconstitutional.
I really have never seen any good argument for the death penalty. Every single point for it can be disproven. So I would prefer to err on the side of not killing someone. That's just me.
For the marriage amendment, I will also vote no. Being a fan of non-discrimination, I do not like seeing age, sex, or race being written into laws. The gender-neutral policy of allowing any two people to marry is fine with me. The problem is that everyone still thinks of marriage in a religious context. Churches can still define their sacraments however they wish. But a legal marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals and the state, allowing for the combination of property, the transfer of medical decisions, child custody issues, and various other legal aspects. It may not be very romantic, but that's what it is. And there is absolutely no reason why two men or two women in a committed relationship should be treated differently than a man and a women. As long as no one is going to force me to marry a man, I say leave the government out of this issue.
I've given my opinions here, but that's all they are. They aren't facts or orders. You are free to vote for what you wish. Again, just make sure you vote. Even if you hate all the candidates, just go and write in no one for every race. Not voting for anyone and voting for no one are two very different things. The first expresses apathy, the second disapproval. If instead of not voting, people voted for no one, then there would be no candidate with a winning majority, and then the system will have to be changed.
And if anyone was wondering, although I am not officially running for any office this election, feel free to write in a vote for Dorshorst for any race as a protest vote.
posted by Dorshorst at 13:46
2 Comments:
Van Hollen more experienced than Falk? Do you realize the attorney general performs 370 duties, one of which is criminal prosecution.
All Van Hollen knows is criminial prosecution, which he won't even being doing as attorney general because that's not their job. That is the job of a district attorney -- the position Van Hollen is more suited for.
You are assuming I said that because I thought the fact that VH was an attorney made him more qualified. That's a reasonable assumption given the campaign ads run. Instead, I said that because I looked into the specifics of his background, and I think what he did as an attorney makes him more qualified.
Post a Comment
<< Home