Wednesday, October 17, 2007

A Voters Obligation


I recently found myself in the company of a local politician who was speaking with a constituent about a local issue. It was obvious that this politician was against what ever they were talking about and so was the constituent. However, the constituent was against it because of the person who was bringing this matter to the voters.

I was very impressed to hear the politician tell him, “You are against this for the wrong reason.” Rather accepting this person’s support on the issue, the politician schooled this fellow why his thinking was unacceptable. It was the issue in question, not the person who brought the issue forward.

This got me thinking about how often the voters are side tracked away from issues, and sidetracked away from what is right or wrong by being presented with issues that have little or nothing to do with the issue being voted on.

Think back to the OJ Simpson trial. The country was sucked up by smugness and theatrics, but what the whole trial came down to was, did the prosecution prove without a reasonable doubt that he was guilty? It was obvious they did not. Spectators felt cheated because the jury followed the instructions of the court and answered that question, the only question they were asked to answer. In the minds of the spectators it became a racial issue and being able to afford justice. It became vengeful and divisive in the eyes of the spectators, but in fact, they jury got it right. The best comment about the situation was that the prosecutors framed a guilty man.

This is the basis for the sad state of politics as well. People are groomed to pick winners, not near winners. Third party candidates are often shunned no matter how good their ideas are. They are called spoilers because they shave some votes from the party their ideology comes closest to representing. They take away votes that would put the more popular candidate over the top often handing the win over to the other party.

Too many people vote for one candidate not so much because they are the better candidate, but because they will prevent others from getting the votes. You will hear them called the lesser of two evils. How often have you heard someone say, “I’d vote for them, but they don’t have a chance.”

Ralph Nader spent days talking about this on his last campaign. People would say that voting for Nader took a vote away form another candidate. Nader was correct. It is still one vote, and had it gone for Nader it would have counted for Nader.

In a few weeks we will be asked to vote on Measure 49 which will rewrite the previously passed Measure 37. The framers of this measure seem to think that government needs to regain some control over land use issues. One side is now stating that if passed you will lose all your land rights. The other side is saying that all land will be gobbled up by greedy developers. In reality neither is true.

There is also Measure 50 which is billed as the tobacco tax. One side says that this tax will provide health care for 100,000 children in Oregon. The other side says that only 60% of this money will be used for that purpose and that it will change the constitution. If the intent is to make smoking unaffordable this tax will collapse upon itself. The issue is in reality if we should tax tobacco users to pay for children’s healthcare and the administration there of. Is this fair?

Finally here in Clatsop County there is measure 4-123. This measure if passed will require Clatsop County to pay a direct salary to the District Attorney based not upon performance measures, but rather upon the pay of circuit judges. This will supersede the present pay scale for District Attorneys making our District Attorney the only one in the state being paid this way and also giving him a higher salary than the Attorney General or the Governor. This is the issue. Do you want this to happen or not? Don’t consider if you like how he is doing his job or even if you don’t like how he does his job. Don’t consider if he gets great press from the Daily Astorian or his involvement in the community. Don’t consider if you like or dislike the County Commissioners. Don’t consider if this measure was brought about by spite.

As a voter you are only being asked, like a juror, if the County should add to the salary of this State employee without this employee having obligations to the County other than what is provided by law.

If you can un-cloud your judgment and vote for the exact interpretation of the issue at hand and if the issues are right or wrong, then you have done your duty as a citizen by casting an honest vote that will work for the betterment of the community.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes NO NO

Anonymous said...

I have considered all of the above, it is a no-brainer! Why would the voters get in deeper with a man who refuses to give OUR commissioners what they need?
On one of these forums Pat Mcgee claims if the DA leaves, we will get stuck with a questionable DA, something about that doesn't sound right. Does he mean we should vote for the DA'S increase? Lesser of two evils? Does he mean all DA's are in question, it is a crap shoot
has it always been?? Mcgee reasoning doesn't make sense!