« Steroids | Main | Craig Nulan: Urban Spelunker »

August 11, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


That's the way it ought to be, voting according to each candidate's declared stance(s). However, there is the slippery implication tho that a candidate isn't unduly influenced by party policy. But hardly any candidate launches a campaign in a vacuum. Normally they have (declared) party allegiances. So if it IS the case that a person can be influenced by party decree(s), then some portion of your voting consideration should focus on what's behind that party label, too.

The candidate can be thought of as merely some specific manifestation of party platform(s). Party matters.

Really, it comes down to a matter of trust. Which person-party do you think/hope/trust will best protect/promote your interests?


Unfortunately, the electorate has deteriorated into a variation of the classic personality cult. Individual personas overwhelm party themes and/or ideologies, which in turn lend the appearance of a token diversity for a given group. AAMOF, it more closely resembles collective dissonance than even pragmatism.

I suspect this pathology will continue until more voters resign their party affiliations and force additional voting reforms, i.e.; open primaries, runoffs, etc., on the state level.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad