The rest of the U.S. had the same problem, but with opposite results. Low information voters voted in Republican all across the board in the rest of the U.S. and particularly the South. I am so disgusted with my state right now - anyone with an R next to their name got voted in, whether or not (and most definitely NOT) had a plan or good ideas or anything palatable about them whatsoever. We literally have no Democratic representation in the House or Senate at this point and the people elected are most definitely not moderates. It's a travesty.
Voting Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) doesn't automatically mean you're a low-information voter, it means you value different things than the Democrat values. Half the country disagree on this issue, it's not because they're stupid or evil, it's because they see things differently than you do.
Intelligent people research the candidates, consider their positions, and choose things you wouldn't necessarily choose. That's what elections are SUPPOSED to do, to help us figure out how to proceed when we have intractable differences. It's an alternative to tribal genocide.
I'm complaining about something different. I'm complaining that they didn't research at all. There was NO REASON to be partisan about the auditor position. There were no differences of opinion here, the only reason to vote for her was because you used no information whatsoever other than your tribal affiliation.
I get what you're saying about the auditor position but I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying something similar. The R candidates in my state that were up had nothing of substance to offer voters - in their mailings, in their ads, at their rallies, on their websites (and sure as hell not when I tweeted and asked them on FB; it was just lots of rhetoric, 'Obama is bad and I will fight him with my gun-toting, anti-abortion Christian values!'), and definitely not in their track records. This includes one who was not only not a good choice, she was the worst possible choice. She will now head up the very same agency that fired her and put her on a do-not-rehire list for gross misconduct.
I am not registered with any party because I believe in the best person for the job. None of the R's in my state's races were the best ones for the jobs. It was an 'I hate Obama' backlash and it was insane.
I wonder how much is the filter you're watching them through. "R" candidates running on an anti-Obama platform, I'll grant you that seems plausible. But to say that they - collectively, all of them - had nothing else to offer makes me suspect you didn't check them out.
As someone who hires staff, my point of view is to hire the person who is best suited for the job. I look at their resume. I look at their websites. I listen to the debates (if I find a debate with good questions.)
I do not look at the ads they are shooting out to capture the low-information voters. Those aren't aimed at me.
I wonder how much is the filter you're watching them through. That's a fair assessment. I really didn't like any of them. I'm not entirely sure how anyone can be completely 100% impartial. But I do indeed do my homework; it's my responsibility to do so.
And so this was the website for my state's new governor.
This was the website my state's new senator (which as you can see was full of ads, not even a section on what stances he had).
And this was the website for my state's new attorney general
( ... )
Here the D candidate (the AG) had some ethical issues that never seemed to come up in the election. She came within 1.5% of the winner - not the sort of outcome I'd expect, at least from an informed electorate who bothered to even just google her.
She is the AG and had been county DA for a number of years before. The state has had persistent issues with tainted evidence. No case seemed too tainted for her to defend - as county DA in an alleged child abuse case where all evidence was heavily tainted she persisted in maintaining convictions even to the point of appealing to the governor (Swift, ca 2002) to not release wronged defendants. This is only one case - there have been others.
Alleged child abusers aren't popular.
Currently we have a drug lab scandal... that's not her fault, but her office's reaction has been to obstruct the sort of work needed to review tainted cases.
In the case of the chief executive, I think you can be forgiven to overlook some personal peccadillos like incompetence and lack of integrity in exchange for getting a leader of your same tribe. I understand how a Democrat could think her policy goals can be presumed to be better than the policies of the Candidate from the other tribe.
I just couldn't assert the same about State Auditor. I don't even know why that position even has a political affiliation. It's like saying "partisan journalist". If you are doing your job right, your personal views about preferred policy will never come up.
How would a democrat (or republican) trust what her policy goals really are if she repeatedly demonstrates lack of integrity in the job she's currently elected to do?
State Auditors are political jobs like any other elected or executive position. Whether the occupant is able to resist to some degree probably depends on their personality. It's an elected position to give it a gloss of independence. The (unstated?) goal of state auditor like any other administration official of the same party as the executive is to paper over any irregularities while pretending to examine the various departments books. Of the other party it's intended to expose politically useful scandal.
It really looks to me like your objections to these candidates are to their platforms. As such, it's really not appropriate to assume that the people voting for them *didn't* know what they were voting for. Sure, you checked them out, found them to be... well, republicans, and concluded that they sucked. But a lot of voters are republicans.
In general, repubilcans: Want their guns Want abortion stopped Want taxes lowered want industry and energy developed
Etcetera.
You've really presented nothing in particular to indicate that these aren't perfectly viable candidates to a typical, well informed, anti-obama republican.
Of course they knew what those candidates 'stood' for. But none of that has much to do with what the actual job entails. They are low-information voters because they do not know what the job these candidates are running for even entails, and how guns, abortion, and Christianity have nothing to do with it. Possibly lowered taxes, though the AG won't have much to do with that.
What is it that causes you to think that those voters were unaware of those factors?
Footnote here that 95% of voters in any election are "low information voters", so I am only debating the marginal voters that put the candidates over the top.
"Gun-toting, anti-abortion Christian values" are a valid thing to offer to those that believe in those principles. It does not indicate a low information voter to vote for someone that has that as a platform, so long as they have looked into the candidate to confirm that the platform the candidate is running on is actually one they support.
Like I said in the other comment, I think those folks are 'low-information voters' because they do not know what the jobs entail. 'Values' are not the same thing as one's job.
that is your opinion of what the job entails. (I agree to some degree)
But there are many who disagree. And the definition of "values" is a fuzzy one. For example, is it a "value" to protect unborn foetuses? Or is it "value" to protect women's reproductive rights? Where does one draw the line?
Reply
Intelligent people research the candidates, consider their positions, and choose things you wouldn't necessarily choose. That's what elections are SUPPOSED to do, to help us figure out how to proceed when we have intractable differences. It's an alternative to tribal genocide.
I'm complaining about something different. I'm complaining that they didn't research at all. There was NO REASON to be partisan about the auditor position. There were no differences of opinion here, the only reason to vote for her was because you used no information whatsoever other than your tribal affiliation.
Reply
Reply
I am not registered with any party because I believe in the best person for the job. None of the R's in my state's races were the best ones for the jobs. It was an 'I hate Obama' backlash and it was insane.
Reply
As someone who hires staff, my point of view is to hire the person who is best suited for the job. I look at their resume. I look at their websites. I listen to the debates (if I find a debate with good questions.)
I do not look at the ads they are shooting out to capture the low-information voters. Those aren't aimed at me.
Reply
And so this was the website for my state's new governor.
This was the website my state's new senator (which as you can see was full of ads, not even a section on what stances he had).
And this was the website for my state's new attorney general ( ... )
Reply
She is the AG and had been county DA for a number of years before. The state has had persistent issues with tainted evidence. No case seemed too tainted for her to defend - as county DA in an alleged child abuse case where all evidence was heavily tainted she persisted in maintaining convictions even to the point of appealing to the governor (Swift, ca 2002) to not release wronged defendants. This is only one case - there have been others.
Alleged child abusers aren't popular.
Currently we have a drug lab scandal... that's not her fault, but her office's reaction has been to obstruct the sort of work needed to review tainted cases.
Perhaps that's being "strong on crime"?
Reply
I just couldn't assert the same about State Auditor. I don't even know why that position even has a political affiliation. It's like saying "partisan journalist". If you are doing your job right, your personal views about preferred policy will never come up.
Reply
State Auditors are political jobs like any other elected or executive position. Whether the occupant is able to resist to some degree probably depends on their personality. It's an elected position to give it a gloss of independence. The (unstated?) goal of state auditor like any other administration official of the same party as the executive is to paper over any irregularities while pretending to examine the various departments books. Of the other party it's intended to expose politically useful scandal.
Reply
In general, repubilcans:
Want their guns
Want abortion stopped
Want taxes lowered
want industry and energy developed
Etcetera.
You've really presented nothing in particular to indicate that these aren't perfectly viable candidates to a typical, well informed, anti-obama republican.
Reply
Reply
Footnote here that 95% of voters in any election are "low information voters", so I am only debating the marginal voters that put the candidates over the top.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
But there are many who disagree. And the definition of "values" is a fuzzy one. For example, is it a "value" to protect unborn foetuses? Or is it "value" to protect women's reproductive rights? Where does one draw the line?
Reply
Leave a comment