After reading up on the candidates at csmonitor.com, ontheissues.org and other sources, I have come to the conclusion there is no candidate that I agree with on every issue. Like Dr. Frankenstein (or the Monitor) I have to create a Patchwork Candidate. This candidate will never exist, and I will be reduced to compromise.
What's a voter to do? Force myself to see his or her way on all the issues, no matter how it compromises my values? Do I limit myself to one or two really hot buttons and find the candidate that meets those? Do I vote the person--relying on my judgement of character, even though I know none of them personally? Hmmmm...
Aren't elections somehow a gamble? We don't know all of the issues the President will face in the ensuing four years, so we can't just open the script and turn to the last page. It hasn't been written. Conspiracy theories aside, Bush didn't know about 9/11 when he was campaigning, yet nothing else has defined his presidency (good or bad) more than the aftermath of that day not eight months after taking office.
Does it really serve us to pick a candidate based on a platform that requires no ripples in the water, much less waves? Do we vote based on the "3 AM phone call", because that's a more likely scenario over the next four years than anything else?
Do we pick our partners, mates, etc. based on their career ambitions or how well we think they can operate in the real world?
Just wondering...how do people decide?
0