A French writer, Alphonse Karr once said "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Skepticism of political parties is by no means a modern idea. Our founding fathers were uncertain as to whether political parties would unify people with common beleifs, or tear the country apart into separate groups. Throughout history, the influence of political party loyalites on voting patterns has varied back and forth. During certain time periods, people voted mainly based on what party they belonged to, and other times people took less heed to party loyalites, voting based on thier agreement with specific representatives.
For the upcoming election, the idea of voting based on the specific candidate rather than on allegiance to a party has re-entered as a common style of voting. The whole idea behind electing officials should be to represent our opinions. Voting should be centered around choosing someone best suited for the position, voted in based on their policies and position on certain issues, not just to blindlessly vote for someone becasue they represent a certain party. The whole reason for the initial emergence of political parties, and registering in a party is to join a group that supports your views. If a candidate from an opposing party presents ideas that agree with your own beliefs better than a candidate from your own party, the candidate you agree with should receive the vote.
Americans should have more loyalty to their own thoughts and beliefs than to a group whose purpose is to represent common beliefs. With so many issues, and so many contrasting views, it is almost impossible to find a party that is just right. There are so many different political parties, and it seems as though no specific party agrees perfectly with all of my beliefs. It is therefore, important for Americans to choose for themselves what they feel about certain controversial social and economic issues, and vote according to personal beleifs. Often times, it is feasible to select a party that agrees with almost all of ones political standings, with a few variations of disagreement here and there. However, when ideas over a specific issue waver greatly from that of the party, and combat personal ideas, Americans shoulf remain loyal to that idea rather than the belief attributed to the political party of which they belong.
Today, we see more and more people casting their votes to a candidate from the opposite party, or simply registering under the Independent party. In elections such as the 2008 presidential election, many citizens are extremely informed, and with such extensive invovlement and awareness, many Americans support a certain candidate regardless of political party ties. However, in state and local elections many people vote based on party allegiance, not the candidate themselves, because of a lack of knowledge of the specific ideas of candidates. In such instances, political parties are good. Political parties allow citizens a sense of what common political beliefs a candidate would most likely have, and suggest that a candidate from one's own party is likely to share beliefs on many issues because of the commonality of the party, without having to extensively research candidates.
Personal ideas certainly should take precedence over party loyalty, and people should "swing" to the opposite side when necessary. This freedom of moving back and forth without feeling obligated to vote in a certain way is one of the beauties of the US's political system, and makes the United States who we are today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Renee'
I wholeheartedly agree with you that an individual should vote for the candidate that shares their beliefs. I have always voted that way, although I do find that most times the individual that upholds the values that are important to me are, in most cases, within the party I support.
I also agree that at times, the local election process comes up quickly and we are not always kept up to speed on what the candidates stand for. In times like this, I tend to lean toward the party I support.
I found your blog to be interesting but feel you could have gotten to your point with a few less words.
Renee, the content of your article is great. I see you've made some progress on how your writing flows so it'll be an easier read. Keep working on that. You do have a few spelling errors. Always spell check your work before publishing it. This type of an error deems your work as less credible and projects a lack of committment on the writer.
Keep up the good work!
Renee, What you present is thoughtful and well developed. Writing like thinking is a process and you demonstrate the progressive value of both. It is also apparent that what you write represents your honest quest to do what you encourage us all to do - think and act on our beliefs and what we believe is best. I am concerned that sometimes we fail to see that there may be a greater good that is beyond our interest and fail to act on that belief, but that can be what we think and believe is best. Thanks for reaffirming our faith in your generation. I have always believed that young people will lead us. The question is will the adults follow. Your program and writing certainly represent these possibilities for all of us. Thank you. Pathfinder
Renee:
You make a good argument for supporting a specific candidate as opposed to supporting a particular political party. And I think you're right about voters needing to be able to support candidates because of their party affiliations at times, too, especially when the voters haven't had enough time to delve into a candidate's exact positions on issues.
I agree with Denise's comment about tightening your blog entry up a bit and with Anonymous's comment about using spell-check so that nitpicky people (like me!) aren't distracted from the point of your blog by typos.
Post a Comment