Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: elections

  • Why Am I Not Involved in Politics?

    Why Am I Not Involved in Politics?

    Because, in my chosen way, I am involved.

    I thought I’d answer this question in a post so I’d have something to reference when people ask. Most of those who have asked me this have not done so in an online environment.

    The reason I want to answer it is that some people have gotten the wrong impression. Thus, first, what is not my reason?

    Not My Reason

    It is not that I believe Christians should not be involved in politics. While I believe that the church, as CHURCH, should not be tied to politics, I believe that individual Christians can and should be involved. The extent of their involvement is individual, but I would include voting, advocating for candidates, endorsing candidates, being a candidate, and of course advocating on issues.

    I was registered to vote in the first election after I turned 18. In that election, I was also the precinct captain for a candidate (it was a primary), and also a poll watcher. I advocated for my candidate on my college campus. I have been involved in other campaigns since, though only at the precinct level. I do not regret this activity in any way.

    I fervently hope that all who are eligible, Christian or not, will study the issues and candidates and go to the polls. Right now, beside this computer, I have my sample ballot. There are a number of races on which I have already decided my position. There are a few marked for some further study.

    My particular reason for writing this post is to make this statement. If you fail to see political posts by me on social media, it is not because I consider politics unimportant, too dirty to get involved in, or uninteresting.

    My Uninvolvement [sic]

    So why would I appear so uninvolved at this point that people ask me why? Obviously, nobody asked that while I was stuffing envelopes, making phone calls, and standing outside the polling station in various elections.

    The reason is simple: I believe that each of us have to set priorities. When I was working politically I had the time to be well-educated on the topics and the reasons I advocated for my candidate or issue.

    In particular, I do not believe the volume of political posts one puts out is a good measure of their involvement or their effectiveness.

    What I Do

    At this point I find I have time to advocate effectively (I hope!) on only a few things. I choose to advocate on issues of my faith. I vigorously advocate for dialog. I advocate against demonizing your opponents. I firmly believe in the worth of every person, definitely including those I am tempted to hate.

    What I do not do is publicly advocate on specific proposals or issues, on parties, or on specific candidates.

    I could wish more people would make some choices along these lines. The vast majority of political posts and memes are not actually worthy of viewing or reading. For some reason we often feel we have to have opinions–strong opinions–on a broad range of political issues, often without enough effort to be informed. Those who repeatedly say, “Do your own research,” are often the worst offenders.

    Conclusion

    My level of involvement is decided by these ideas, and yes, as a Christian, I decide this prayerfully. But please, be involved as you can effectively be. Then show up at the polls and vote. It’s a privilege, but I also see it as a duty as a citizen of a republic.

  • A Few Notes on Civility

    A Few Notes on Civility

    I’m not even sure if civility is the right word here, but it will work. I’m talking about remaining courteous even while expressing vigorous opinions.

    1. Civility isn’t cowardice. Rather, it is choosing the most effective way to express one’s opinion. It may lead to civil disobedience, a situation in which one offers oneself in a stand against evil.
    2. Civility isn’t silence. It may involve limited words. It may be a simple “I disagree.”
    3. Civility isn’t a lack of conviction. It’s a way of expressing yourself that you think will connect.
    4. Civility isn’t weakness. The loudest voice is not necessarily the one with the greatest conviction.
    5. Civility isn’t a debt you owe to the other side. It is something you do for yourself and for your cause.
    6. Civility isn’t easy. I think we all know this.

    The most important action is still your vote. The reduction in turnout for mid-term elections is an unfortunate comment on how people understand the process. Please study out your candidates for this coming election and be at the polls. The primary election in Florida is August 28, and the general election is November 6. We have a senate election, a gubernatorial election, and, of course, congressional. You can get information on the various ways to vote at the Department of State-Division of Elections site.

    I registered to vote when I turned 18, and I’ve been to the polls for every election since that time. I simply cannot understand low turnout for local elections or in non-presidential years.

  • How to Lose Credibility

    How to Lose Credibility

    Here’s the headline: Democrats flip 43rd state legislative seat since Trump took office

    Now read carefully down to the 3rd from the last paragraph: “The 43 wins for Democrats have not been a net gain, however.”

    What exactly is going on? Have democrats gained or lost legislative seats? How many?

    I went to Ballotpedia for a count. I combine numbers from 2017 and 2018 to date.

    Under the heading “Flipped Seats,” we find that 17 seats flipped in 2017, 14 from Republican to Democrat and 3 from Democrat to Republican, for a net Democratic gain of 11 seats.

    For 2018, under the same heading we find that 10 seats have flipped in special elections, 9 in favor of Democrats and 1 in favor of Republicans, for a net gain of 8 seats.

    Between the two sets of numbers we have a net gain of 19 in special elections. In addition, I found a net gain of 3 for the Democrats in New Jersey, and a net gain of 15 in Virginia (all in the House of Delegates). The net total would be 37.

    My point is not where the other seats might be, but that the two statements are inconsistent. Is 43 flipped seats to the Democratic party net? Apparently not, and if I didn’t count net seats, I would be close to 43. But 37 net gain is still a net gain, even if not of 43 seats. Perhaps they mean that 43 is not the net number. So why not give us the net number? I’m not paid for this, so I’m not going to try to track down the rest of the numbers. Politifact is paid, and you can read what they found earlier in the year. Their text and then their rating illustrates why I tend to read them to raid their sources, but pay little attention to their final rating.

    37 seats is interesting in itself, though the meaning can be debated. But this kind of loose reporting, with a headline that would suggest something different than the text and numbers that might (or might not) reflect something different than the text shows why the media is having a hard time getting accepted as fact checkers.

    I think it is unfortunate that many Americans have gone from a biased source to sources without any moorings at all. But having your expectations trampled upon repeatedly does not make for confidence. Getting basic data right would be helpful.

  • The Season of Political Literature

    I notice my wastebasket filling up with political literature as the season gets into full swing. Currently we’re approaching primary season, and because I’m registered as an independent, I don’t get much during the primaries. My wife is registered with one of the parties (though I’ll note that her voting habits are as independent as mine) so we still get plenty of literature.

    The literature normally consists of a card or a flyer, and there is never any substantial information. There isn’t space for it. It’s just packaging and campaign slogans. Behind he literature there are good candidates and bad, but the campaign content is always shallow.

    In trying to learn about the candidates I will read interviews in newspapers, I’ll peruse websites, though many of those are as bad as the mailed literature, and I’ll do some research. I’ll do my best not to be influenced by campaign ads, though I have been turned off to a few candidates by the kind of ads they aired or printed.

    The only information that will come in the mail that I appreciate is the sample ballot sent by our Supervisor of Elections. Shortly after we receive that, my wife and I will have a discussion, one we have before each election. We’ll each mark the ballot and then we’ll go through them and discuss each candidate and issue and the choice we’ve made on our own. (She researches candidates much as I do.) We’ll discuss our choices. Sometimes we change one another’s mind on some candidate or issue (especially on issues).

    Campaigns and candidates often remind me of a present one member of our family gave another. I forget who was the giver and the recipient, but the present was very small, and the giver wrapped one box in another until it was the largest package under the Christmas tree. It took a long time to unwrap. At least the present was nice, though small.

    In the case of campaigns, it often seems that one works and works to unwrap the candidate, only to find another bit of packaging. We’ve handed the campaigns over to the packagers, the political consultants and professional campaign managers.

    I say “we” here intentionally. It’s easy to blame everyone else, but many people will show up at the polls this year barely acquainted with the names of the candidates, if they even know that. They will have a positive or negative impression that is built from ads and is based more on how good of a team each of those candidates fielded, specifically how good that team was at packaging their candidate favorably, and harming the other candidates packaging.

    If the media did their job, researching and informing us, it would change things a great deal. But the media won’t do that unless we, the readers and viewers demand it, and refuse to support those news sources that fail to do so. Ultimately, the one and only thing that can change the way elections work is an electorate that wants the information to make an intelligent choice.

    What can we each do? Be an informed voter and encourage others to do so as well. That’s the most important thing we can do.

  • A Forest of Signs and Waving People

    I headed out to vote yesterday in the Florida primary. We had contests for a number of local offices. I’m registered with no party affiliation, but there was one non-partisan race that needed thinning out and one race that would be settled by the Republican primary. It was a fairly easy task to fill out my ballot!

    I was struck again by the forest of signs around the polling place. There’s a sign indicating how close people can be to the entrance if they are going to solicit people’s votes. Actually nobody was all that close. They had chosen to gather around the entrance to the property Several people not only had signs, but had volunteers with t-shirts and hats who would wave to prospective voters on their way in. My precinct is in a church, so I suspect those folks wasted a bunch of waves on people visiting the church office or something of the sort.

    It’s not my major point, but one guy was standing by the road, and someone, possibly a friend, or perhaps even a political opponent had pulled up beside him in a pickup truck and they were talking. He waved to me and then tried to wave me around the truck, but unfortunately he also waved someone coming from the other direction. It took him a couple of minutes to think of the idea of getting that pickup truck out of the way of voters trying to get to the polls or leave again after voting.

    What I’m wondering is just how much such a display of signs and waving people impacts anyone’s interest in voting. My approach to choosing candidates is to read their web sites, read the literature they send out, read the newspaper interviews or fact sheets on them, and so forth. On local candidates, information can be hard to come by, but usually you can find out something more substantive than the person’s name and the office for which they are running.

    I can’t resist another detour here on the subject of campaign literature. This year I did read one piece of campaign literature that would have impacted my vote if I had been able to vote in that primary. (The candidate involved won his primary.) This was a simple postcard with a list of claims that I could easily fact check, and which appear to have been mostly true. They were negative, but provided good reasons not to vote for his opponent. Negative advertising can be of value. I don’t object to something just because it’s negative; I object if it is inaccurate or twisted and also negative.

    But to reiterate, how much do signs and waving people impact votes? Earlier in the campaign I saw some people holding signs for a candidate on an overpass over the interstate and waving to passing motorists. Is it possible that there is someone out there who doesn’t know who they plan to vote for and lets themselves be persuaded because they saw someone standing on an overpass with a sign and waving? It just seems too bizarre for words.

    Perhaps they just use that to gain name recognition, but then just what value is that type of recognition? You don’t know anything about the candidate. I get the sample ballots our elections office kindly provides and look up each and every candidate. Name recognition has nothing to do with it.

    Oh well, this will be only one of my election season rants. It seems to me that it is such a privilege to actually have a government in which we can each participate, and that any citizen would be willing to spend just a few minutes every couple of years to actually vote based on some idea of who the candidates are and what they stand for. Signs and waving people seem to argue against that.