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.
when the united states was first formed the Senate was not elected by popular vote (nor, in fact, is the President now.) It was elected by the state representatives, a collection of people who had already been appointed to represent their district. Presumably they had integrity and intelligence.
Neither integrity nor intelligence are necessary to vote for our highest offices anymore. I see no reason to think that this is an improvement.
Oddly, the idea of elected police commissioners is a new one over here - copied largely from the US. We don't have a tradition of electing most state and local goverment officials. We have elected councillors, but traditionally have not directly elected people like police commissioners. I'm not convinced that this is an improvement. More democracy does not necessarily equal better government.
>> Presumably they had integrity and intelligence.
It was changed for a variety of reasons - some states deadlocked on selection and wound up minus a senator for periods of time, some had rampant vote selling. There were various attempts to fix. Direct election was the last.
Unfortunately, low information voters are an amazingly strong majority. Most people vote based on party affiliation, and are only brought to the polls for 1 of 2 reasons. A) fear, and B) loathing.
I go into this a bit on my "elections" post, but basically, most people don't even bother to go look at the "ontheissues" page for the candidate. All they get is the advertising soundbytes and "what terrible people those Xs are".
If more people would actually do even basic minimal research, I think that the results of a whole lot of elections would be a lot different.
I also think that we'd have better candidate pools to pull from.
This was also true in our gubernatorial election in Oregon. The incumbent (running for his 4th term!!) was accused of ethics violations with respect to his fiancée running her consulting business out of the Governor's mansion and getting undeserved contracts because her position. Not to mention her green card marriage for hire and illegal marijuana growing operation from her past. But beyond his bad choice in bedfellows, he also oversaw Cover Oregon, which I think says enough right there. I just...don't know about this state sometimes. On the upside, we did legalize recreational marijuana use so I guess we'll just all be numb to his current term.... (I kid, I kid.)
My coworkers and I were just talking about the fact that Oregon legalized recreational marijuana... and yet here in Arkansas the majority of voters voted to keep dry counties. Sigh.
I recently learned that Colorado still has weird alcohol laws even though they passed recreational marijuana last election. I think you can't buy any alcohol > 3.2% in a grocery store unless they have a pharmacy or something like that. Seemed odd to me.
How do you analyze similar outcomes when the winning candidate is bland/meh with no distinguishing features other than the letter after their name, and the losing candidate/side is two-faced and say-one-thing-do-another?
My state stays pretty static in their regional and state level voting unless someone really pisses them off. Low info or not. The "other side" doesn't help their cause by being reactive and opportunistic: "oh, well, they're just saying that to get elected." (And they really are.) *votes for the letter*
This particular case is one where a specific skill set - a resume - would be helpful. Just as you want a physician to be Surgeon General, you want someone trained in Audit to be the State Auditor. There are no meaningful policy decisions to be made - at least not if you aren't corrupt - and the party shouldn't matter. Furthermore, the incumbent had measured job performance that showed her to be particularly bad at it.
The case really was clear cut. Republicans in MA are about 15% of the population and the Republican candidate got 40%. That suggests a bunch of non-partisan people looked first.
But for the obviously unqualified candidate to win, with no policy objectives on the line, there just isn't any other way to explain it other than the voters never even looked once at the candidates running.
Comments 95
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
Reply
Neither integrity nor intelligence are necessary to vote for our highest offices anymore. I see no reason to think that this is an improvement.
Reply
Reply
It was changed for a variety of reasons - some states deadlocked on selection and wound up minus a senator for periods of time, some had rampant vote selling. There were various attempts to fix. Direct election was the last.
Reply
I go into this a bit on my "elections" post, but basically, most people don't even bother to go look at the "ontheissues" page for the candidate. All they get is the advertising soundbytes and "what terrible people those Xs are".
If more people would actually do even basic minimal research, I think that the results of a whole lot of elections would be a lot different.
I also think that we'd have better candidate pools to pull from.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
My state stays pretty static in their regional and state level voting unless someone really pisses them off. Low info or not. The "other side" doesn't help their cause by being reactive and opportunistic: "oh, well, they're just saying that to get elected." (And they really are.) *votes for the letter*
Reply
The case really was clear cut. Republicans in MA are about 15% of the population and the Republican candidate got 40%. That suggests a bunch of non-partisan people looked first.
But for the obviously unqualified candidate to win, with no policy objectives on the line, there just isn't any other way to explain it other than the voters never even looked once at the candidates running.
Reply
Leave a comment