Faudulent Reasoning: A Voter Indictment

My son turned 2 months old last week. Why are you cheering? Why does everyone cheer when I say that? Could it be because they see the look of pure exhaustion in my brown eyes? A two month old does not care for most things, and sleep is chief among them. While my wife takes a turn at sleeping, I stroll around the house with my offspring in whatever position is remotely acceptable at the time.

We talk about many different things, well I talk he mostly just stares at me. I speak of the world he has been born into and the people that inhabit it. Together we review my Twitter feed, and he listens or appears to listen as I complain about numerous and varied issues.

Last night as we repeated our nightly ritual I came across what may have been the most disturbing “tweet” I have ever read.  Long story short (shorter than 130 characters?) My friend, a conservative, feels that with the Romney nomination he is forced to vote for Obama. First, let me say that everyone is entitled to vote for whomever they wish. No one need state their reasoning for choosing a candidate, but since my friend chose to do so here we go:

So at the behest of my son (by behest I mean screaming fit aimed at getting me to shut up) I emailed my friend and asked him If he would explain his thought process on his selection for president.

He sent back four words “Romney’s not conservative enough”

It is good that I was already not getting any sleep, because the lack of logic in use by this gentleman would keep a sane person up for weeks. The GOP nominee is not conservative enough, so I am going to vote for the most liberal president in history? “Romney and I don’t see eye to eye on some of the issues.” Really,  could you list all of the  issues on which you and Mr. Obama agree?…no really take some time…I’ll wait. A conservative voting for Obama is like a cow voting for Ronald McDonald.

Then it occurred to me that our slavish devotion to a two party system has caused this problem. If there are only two choices one of them must be perfect. Right? Oh sure there will be third parties on the ballot but voting for them against an incumbent you don’t favor is statistically the same as voting for the incumbent.

I have no information that will help me sway the opinion of my friend. I can almost see him strolling through the polling place with his ballot. As he strides his way into the booth and stands there, pen in hand. Dangling the pen for just a second he lets out an evil laugh as he passes by the name of the politician that holds some of his principles and positions and marks the ballot for the opposite. Under his breath you can almost hear him mutter “that’ll show ’em”.

Our two party system is broken, but your vote should not be a tool by which you seek to punish the system. Casting a vote for someone you cannot remotely agree with just to prove a point is asinine and obnoxious. It is hardly what our founding fathers had in mind.  It is an insult to our country and to ones self. Have some self respect, at least try to sell your vote first.

Tagged , , , , , ,

4 thoughts on “Faudulent Reasoning: A Voter Indictment

  1. John Calhoun says:

    At the risk of sound like a party stooge, I would argue Mr. Obama is not the most liberal president in U.S. history. Here I take liberal and progressive to mean largely the same thing, which points me in the direction of FDR. He basically did everything Obama’s tried, but moreso. And let us not forget the great emancipator. If using federal government to kick half the countries ass into doing what it wanted wasn’t the model of progressive ideology, I don’t know what is.

    Maybe top 5, but probably not the most.

    But what I really wanted to say was that I totally agree with you about the two party system. We’re getting to a place where proportional representation or instance runoffs would be a wise choice. I think it would have a moderating effect on Congress (forcing the parties to form coalitions instead of winning a majority) and it would give folks a real reason to vote for that third party.

    Also, campaign finance needs to be fixed. All of it. Super PACS. Funding guidelines. Campaign start times. Donation caps. Corporate financing. All of it.

  2. mike says:

    I’m seconding John re: Obama as the most liberal president.

    John, one problem with coalition governments is they end up giving disproportionate influence to third parties. Let’s say Congress goes 45% Republican, 45% Democrat, and 10% Third Party. Because they would be needed to form a coalition, the Third Party could heavily sway policy, way out of proportion to how many votes they got. The larger party that forms the coalition ends up with less than their proportional influence should give them. Not that I have a better idea…

  3. John Calhoun says:

    Yeah, at this point a coalition government might be better than a gridlocked government.

    Honestly, I’m actually think in terms of human interaction more than power dynamics. I just feel like if the FAR left (PETA) was and the FAR right (Nazi Party) were viable options for government it would cause the more moderate majorities to look to each side and consider who they really want to work with.

    Then again, the Nazi Party is an actual party in Germany right now, so maybe not.

  4. […] Voters, listen up (You should all be listening since you should all be registered to vote!)! J. Fortune knows you’ve been guilty of fraudulent reasoning. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *