I think that there is a profound difference between the person who is too lazy or indifferent to vote and the person who after careful thought decides that neither candidate warrants their vote. Sadly, our system does not allow the option "None of the above turkeys'. The number of voters who choose that option would send a strong message to the winner. I've never been convinced by the saying "Hold your nose and vote for the better of two bad options."
Thanks for weighing in, Nick. But what about all of the other candidates on the ballot besides the top two candidates? Should they be denied your vote as well. You can always leave some choices blank while voting for the others.
I forgot your multi-office voting ballot. In Canada, we only vote for one issue at a time (e.g. leadership at whatever government level), which works in our limited democratic system, and wouldn't in yours. Mind you, a 'none of the above' vote for each option would still be feasible if lengthening the ballot sheet significantly.
There's an argument that in the attempt to give people a vote for so many different offices and referenda at one time, the voting process becomes overly complex and discourages attendance.
Interesting quotes and analysis, as always. But I wonder if some of the political indifference comes from the fact that voters get burned out. I watched today the video of the Joe Rogan interview of Donald Trump. It was 3 hours long, but I turned it off after an hour. Both men are polished at this, and the conversation was entertaining, but it was not thought-provoking. It was deja vu all over again.
Advertising by the Democrats and the Republicans have been running for months, and what was saturated has become supersaturated. Who even pays attention any more? But the campaigns are raising and spending 100s of millions more to pump out more ads. I'm sick of it.
That made me realize again how silly our presidential elections are. By November 5 the election will have gone on for 725 days. Over $2 billion will have been spent (on the presidential election alone). And for what? Anyone who is not yet singing in one choir or the other is too tone-deaf to sing at all. Those yet undecided should not vote, in my opinion.
I think we should cut the campaigns down to 2 weeks of campaigning followed by a national primary, and 2 more weeks of campaigning followed by the general election. Each party should be limited to spending $50 million. And that’s plenty. We spend too much time. We spend too much money.
It’s not just the presidential election that needs a drastic trim. All elections. The total spent on this election cycle will top $16 billion. And what will we get for that amount of money? What productive thing will have been produced for us to benefit from? Nothing. Many politicians spend a lot of their time in office either campaigning or raising money for their campaign. What good does that do for the country?
We can do better. Look around the world, and most countries’ elections are short and cheap. Japanese voters will go to the polls tomorrow to vote in an election that began a week ago Tuesday. A mere 12 days from start to finish. And the amount of money spent on the campaigns was minimal.
There's no need for this drawn-out, ridiculous spectacle that consumes money that could be put to practical use and that makes voters' eyes glaze over. America used to show more initiative and innovation in our politics, both in substance and in process. Let’s make America agile again. Let's get the elections over with, and spend the time and money on getting real work done.
I agree with you...the election campaign becomes too routine and people just burn out and tune out. Doesn't UK limit campaigning to 2 weeks? The US election seems more about money than anything else. The amount spent before the vote is just obscene!!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the election, John. While I agree with much of what you say, I disagree with your saying, "Those yet undecided should not vote, in my opinion." Just because people don't like the top two candidates, should candidates for the senate, or the governorship, or the school board be denied their vote?
Hi Mardy, as always, your comments are astute. I look forward eagerly to your stellar newsletter every week. It brims with wisdom, common sense, and luminous learning. I heartily agree with your essay this week: Every US citizen has an obligation to vote! Best, Chris Palmer
Dr. M....Thanks for the 'heads up'....You always start my Sunday mornings even before my feet hit the floor! The upcoming election is not the time for indifference or apathy. Frankly, I'm concerned about what happens in the US even though I no longer live there. Voting from abroad is much more difficult than it should be but I haven't missed a general election since 2001. I'm still an American. I remember my grandparents (both sides of the family) voting after becoming US citizens. They were so proud. I think of them when I struggle to get my ballot cast. It would be so easy to say 'forget it'...but I can't do them that dishonor. Thank you for all you do. Your weekly newsletter is a valuable part of my life....better than playing online Scrabble....it's gymnastics for my brain!! Thank you again. Fingers crossed that we can all get out the vote!
Thanks for encouraging readers to vote. You don't have to like the person you vote for, you don't have to agree with the person you vote for, you just have to believe that the person you vote for will be better for our country than the opposing candidate.
Voting is critical to the survival of democracy as we know it. In Australia voting is obligatory. Why not in every nation? As an outsider (English living in South Africa) I find it incredible that a country with a population of +/- 350M can produce two such undistinguished - to put it mildly - candidates.
Great newsletter today! As you know, you're right in my wheelhouse. I have very little (maybe zero) patience for anyone who does not exercise their right to vote! And, as a result, I give no credence to their complaints about any elected officials. Your words are right on target and, hopefully, will be shared by any of your readers who know someone who is considering sitting out this election. Thanks for doing your part to encourage participation in our democratic electoral process. It is a privilege denied millions of people around the world. We should honor it by VOTING!
Great article, Mardy. I believe it is the duty of every citizen to identify their own values and positions on important topics, and then do their homework to determine where each candidate stands and how their values compare to their own. They should choose a candidate because they have come to the strong conviction that this candidate will lead well, not because of the person's race, gender, physical appearance, or ability to deliver a smooth and compelling oratory. They should choose to vote because they feel a strong compulsion to choose a well-qualified candidate. If they are not willing to do the work and come to that place of conviction, I would prefer that they not vote. To do so would reduce our elections to the level of a vote for high school student body president--a mere popularity contest.
Thanks for weighing in Scott. As I've said so many times, though, not voting because you don't like either one of the top two candidates denies every other candidate for office your vote.
Thanks for your heartwarming words, David. You should know, however, that Burke never actually wrote those words. Check out the "Author Unknown" entry in the EVIL section of my DMDMQ: https://www.drmardy.com/dmdmq/e#evil
Mardy, what a timely, practical, heartfelt topic! My wife and I voted yesterday. And with some family members, we prepared 400 personal letters, organized by ‘Vote Forward’, encouraging target Democratic swing state voters to participate in the process.
Thank you for encouraging your readers to vote! It is so important (especially this year) as you expressed so well.
And looking forward to seeing more comments too!!!
Thanks so much, Barbara. As of now, you're the first!
I think that there is a profound difference between the person who is too lazy or indifferent to vote and the person who after careful thought decides that neither candidate warrants their vote. Sadly, our system does not allow the option "None of the above turkeys'. The number of voters who choose that option would send a strong message to the winner. I've never been convinced by the saying "Hold your nose and vote for the better of two bad options."
Thanks for weighing in, Nick. But what about all of the other candidates on the ballot besides the top two candidates? Should they be denied your vote as well. You can always leave some choices blank while voting for the others.
I forgot your multi-office voting ballot. In Canada, we only vote for one issue at a time (e.g. leadership at whatever government level), which works in our limited democratic system, and wouldn't in yours. Mind you, a 'none of the above' vote for each option would still be feasible if lengthening the ballot sheet significantly.
There's an argument that in the attempt to give people a vote for so many different offices and referenda at one time, the voting process becomes overly complex and discourages attendance.
Thanks for the explanation. I knew nothing at all about your method. Most interesting.
Interesting quotes and analysis, as always. But I wonder if some of the political indifference comes from the fact that voters get burned out. I watched today the video of the Joe Rogan interview of Donald Trump. It was 3 hours long, but I turned it off after an hour. Both men are polished at this, and the conversation was entertaining, but it was not thought-provoking. It was deja vu all over again.
Advertising by the Democrats and the Republicans have been running for months, and what was saturated has become supersaturated. Who even pays attention any more? But the campaigns are raising and spending 100s of millions more to pump out more ads. I'm sick of it.
That made me realize again how silly our presidential elections are. By November 5 the election will have gone on for 725 days. Over $2 billion will have been spent (on the presidential election alone). And for what? Anyone who is not yet singing in one choir or the other is too tone-deaf to sing at all. Those yet undecided should not vote, in my opinion.
I think we should cut the campaigns down to 2 weeks of campaigning followed by a national primary, and 2 more weeks of campaigning followed by the general election. Each party should be limited to spending $50 million. And that’s plenty. We spend too much time. We spend too much money.
It’s not just the presidential election that needs a drastic trim. All elections. The total spent on this election cycle will top $16 billion. And what will we get for that amount of money? What productive thing will have been produced for us to benefit from? Nothing. Many politicians spend a lot of their time in office either campaigning or raising money for their campaign. What good does that do for the country?
We can do better. Look around the world, and most countries’ elections are short and cheap. Japanese voters will go to the polls tomorrow to vote in an election that began a week ago Tuesday. A mere 12 days from start to finish. And the amount of money spent on the campaigns was minimal.
There's no need for this drawn-out, ridiculous spectacle that consumes money that could be put to practical use and that makes voters' eyes glaze over. America used to show more initiative and innovation in our politics, both in substance and in process. Let’s make America agile again. Let's get the elections over with, and spend the time and money on getting real work done.
I agree with you...the election campaign becomes too routine and people just burn out and tune out. Doesn't UK limit campaigning to 2 weeks? The US election seems more about money than anything else. The amount spent before the vote is just obscene!!
Wow. You sound like the Statesman I've been missing. Sadly, people with your intelligence are too intelligent to run. And here we are.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the election, John. While I agree with much of what you say, I disagree with your saying, "Those yet undecided should not vote, in my opinion." Just because people don't like the top two candidates, should candidates for the senate, or the governorship, or the school board be denied their vote?
Hi Mardy, as always, your comments are astute. I look forward eagerly to your stellar newsletter every week. It brims with wisdom, common sense, and luminous learning. I heartily agree with your essay this week: Every US citizen has an obligation to vote! Best, Chris Palmer
Thanks for your kind words, Chris. It's been nice having you on board for all these years.
Just as uncertainty brings folks to sporting events; hopefuly it would bring more out to vote, too!
Yes, here's hoping!
Dr. M....Thanks for the 'heads up'....You always start my Sunday mornings even before my feet hit the floor! The upcoming election is not the time for indifference or apathy. Frankly, I'm concerned about what happens in the US even though I no longer live there. Voting from abroad is much more difficult than it should be but I haven't missed a general election since 2001. I'm still an American. I remember my grandparents (both sides of the family) voting after becoming US citizens. They were so proud. I think of them when I struggle to get my ballot cast. It would be so easy to say 'forget it'...but I can't do them that dishonor. Thank you for all you do. Your weekly newsletter is a valuable part of my life....better than playing online Scrabble....it's gymnastics for my brain!! Thank you again. Fingers crossed that we can all get out the vote!
Thanks for your heartwarming words about my efforts, Arlene, as well as your thoughts about the election.
Excellent Mardy. I also commend your call to vote. Hope you all manage over there. All the best, John.
Thanks, John. We do have a model that is very different from yours in England. Somehow, we'll find a way to manage; I'm sure of it.
Thanks for encouraging readers to vote. You don't have to like the person you vote for, you don't have to agree with the person you vote for, you just have to believe that the person you vote for will be better for our country than the opposing candidate.
Thanks, Sybil. Well said.
Voting is critical to the survival of democracy as we know it. In Australia voting is obligatory. Why not in every nation? As an outsider (English living in South Africa) I find it incredible that a country with a population of +/- 350M can produce two such undistinguished - to put it mildly - candidates.
Thanks for weighing in, Richard. I've heard about that obligatory method you use. How's it working out?
Your publication is brilliant and something I look forward to weekly. The simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Bravo 👏
Thanks, Bob, your comment makes my day!
Great newsletter today! As you know, you're right in my wheelhouse. I have very little (maybe zero) patience for anyone who does not exercise their right to vote! And, as a result, I give no credence to their complaints about any elected officials. Your words are right on target and, hopefully, will be shared by any of your readers who know someone who is considering sitting out this election. Thanks for doing your part to encourage participation in our democratic electoral process. It is a privilege denied millions of people around the world. We should honor it by VOTING!
Thanks, Kelly, we are on the exact same wavelength!
Great article, Mardy. I believe it is the duty of every citizen to identify their own values and positions on important topics, and then do their homework to determine where each candidate stands and how their values compare to their own. They should choose a candidate because they have come to the strong conviction that this candidate will lead well, not because of the person's race, gender, physical appearance, or ability to deliver a smooth and compelling oratory. They should choose to vote because they feel a strong compulsion to choose a well-qualified candidate. If they are not willing to do the work and come to that place of conviction, I would prefer that they not vote. To do so would reduce our elections to the level of a vote for high school student body president--a mere popularity contest.
Thanks for weighing in Scott. As I've said so many times, though, not voting because you don't like either one of the top two candidates denies every other candidate for office your vote.
Question: What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?
Answer: I don't know, and I don't care!
Comment: And in a national election, that's shameful. Thanks Mardy.
Thanks, Mike. That one goes WAYYY back. I also agree with your assessment.
I am so torn - I am halfway considering flipping a coin. But I must vote!
Yes, you must! And, remember, there are dozens of other candidates on the ballot who need you to vote as well.
What a timely and wise column.
I'm reminded of Edmund Burke's quote:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Sunday mornings begin with Dr Mardy's Quotes of the Week.
Thanks for your heartwarming words, David. You should know, however, that Burke never actually wrote those words. Check out the "Author Unknown" entry in the EVIL section of my DMDMQ: https://www.drmardy.com/dmdmq/e#evil
Mardy, what a timely, practical, heartfelt topic! My wife and I voted yesterday. And with some family members, we prepared 400 personal letters, organized by ‘Vote Forward’, encouraging target Democratic swing state voters to participate in the process.
Thanks, Dan. You and your wife definitely fit the descriptor "Politically engaged"!