OPINION & EDITORIAL
Responsibility for voting on students
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Allison Isaacson:
Related Stories:
- GOP urges campus to cast educated ballots (October 24, 2006)
- Do not complain if you do not vote (November 5, 2002)
- Votes must be cast, counted (September 14, 2004)
- Voting for a man, not against one (September 1, 2004)
- Students should get out and vote (November 4, 2002)
by Allison Isaacson
Friday, October 29, 2004
You’ve heard it for months now, but I have no qualms about drilling it into your heads — voting is certainly your right, but it’s absolutely your responsibility. Vote. Whether it’s Kerry or Bush, vote.
Especially in the swing state of Wisconsin, you’ve heard the yelling for almost a year now. The whisper, however, is what just may make the biggest difference this Tuesday. And that whisper is Ralph Nader.
Nader’s not going to win on Nov. 2. Even his supporters know that. They’re simply trying to show us that the two-party political system we have in America is detrimental to our country’s fundamental freedoms. And even though I’m staunchly anti-Nader in this election, I completely agree with them on this issue. There is something wrong with our country when we say you must be a Democrat or Republican to have even a shot at a major political office. We need new voices in politics. Independent and third-party candidates can and will bring this change to Washington; however, this election year isn’t the time to advocate that change.
I realize, of course, that I’m pretty much preaching to the choir. Those of you who are reading this political editorial on Friday afternoon are most likely voting, and if you are voting for Nader, I’m guessing your mind’s pretty set on it. So the rest of you — Democrats and the much-sought-after undecideds — voting is not enough this year! You must realize that whether you like Bush, Kerry or neither, one will win next week. You have the opportunity to make sure it’s at least the lesser of two evils. You’re not taking a high-and-mighty political stance by not voting on Tuesday. You won’t be practicing an esteemed act of civil disobedience, either. Not voting for John Kerry is taking away a vote from John Kerry.
Most of you know we simply can’t let George Bush win another term. This article isn’t about the wrongdoings of W., but I might as well touch on them one last time before Tuesday. Bush only cares about the richest of the rich Americans, and he certainly doesn’t care about a woman’s right to choose what goes on with her own body. Bush actually believes he has the right to tell people who they can love and marry and how much their love is worth in income tax and health-care benefits. Is this not America, home of the free? Republicans are insistent on keeping “undesirables” oppressed and disadvantaged, and their policies reflect this. Abortion rights, birth control, quality education, marriage for all who desire it, true separation of church and state — these rights belong to all American people. John Kerry will give us the liberties we are entitled to in a much greater way than will George Bush.
Not voting will help Bush win an undeserved second term. Do you really want to take these chances? Not bringing your friends to the polls with you this Tuesday is going to achieve the same results. And certainly, voting for Ralph Nader is going to kill our opportunity to give the Democrats back the White House.
I do advocate political reform, really. I also think civil disobedience is great. But Nov. 2 is not the time to practice either. Kerry or Bush is going to win, and the only way you can make sure it’s not a corporate-loving, war-hungry good ol’ boy is to make sure every single person you know votes. I don’t care if your friends are tired of hearing your political speeches; deliver them one last time this weekend. I don’t care if they think they don’t have 20 minutes to go to the polls; bake them cookies in exchange for their voting. You literally have the chance to change history. Stop Bush’s reelection by voting and quelling the Nader presence.
Third-party folks, start work early on Nov. 3 by making the third-party presence known so 2008 will be a huge year for Nader and his compadres. But please, cool it ‘til then. The two-party political system may have serious issues — but it’s what we have for the next week, at least. Make a choice and make sure the lesser of the two corporate evils wins this Tuesday. It really is your civic duty.
Allison Isaacson (apisaacson@students.wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 2:11am):
No, I am tired of being pragmatic. This lesser of to evils is crap. I am picking the leader of the most powerful nation of the world and the individual of the country I plan on speding my life in. I refuse to be guilted into voting for one or the other of these two incompetent boobs simply due to the fact that they are the only viable winning candidates.
I am going to vote libertarian because, I hate the civil libereties abuses of the current administration but I also fear the big government plans of the other challengers.
If that description fits you vote libertarian. If not then vote for someone else who more closely resmbles your belief structure, whether it be green, constitution, or socialist.
We do not vote for someone because they are more likely to get elected, we should vote because we believe in their vision fo the countrry and we think it represeents us. It is a political party's job to get someone elected it is our job as individual citizens to indicate who represents us more.
Feel free to vote for Bush or Kerry if you believe in them, not because you fear the other. If you think all of the parties suck don't vote and follow the suggestion of this article and work towards forming a party that does.
Pragmatism got us two mediocre candidates for the main parties, I personally am drawing the line in the sand an praying that next go around I have some actual solid alternatives to Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dummer.
For this election I hope a few others will join me on that side of the line. NO MORE COMPROMISES!
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 2:13am):
Pardon my grammar. I didn't check before I posted.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 9:40am):
Every election comes down to a giant duche and a tird sandwich.
Not voting is a horrible idea. People spent decades fighting for the right to vote, and you think just because you do not like the candidates that you should just obstain. Guess what you may never like a presidential candidate.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 10:16am):
I can't stand Bush, and I don't like Kerry much more, but I'll vote for Kerry because my top priority in this election is getting the worst president ever out of office.
That said, the first commenter's argument for voting for a third party candidate is the most cogent one I have heard. It is far superior to anything I have heard from the Nader camp, also known as the Provisional Republican Party. I disagree with your stance, but I can respect you for it.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 11:58am):
Worst President ever out of office? I didn't know James Buchanan was running again. Thanks for your totally uneducated post, though.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 12:51pm):
"Thanks for your totally uneducated post, though."
Ditto to you.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 1:07pm):
No, he's right. How many presidents do you actually have an informed opinion of if you thing Bush is the worst in history?
Is it the "lies"?
How about Nixon?
Do you think he's ineffective?
How about Buchanan?
Is it the supposed assault on civil liberties?
How about John Adams?
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 1:30pm):
I couldn't disagree more with this editorial. Voting third party in this election clearly shows the two party system that there needs to be reform. Voting third party now shows that you are willing to take a stand against the inefficient, big government parties that currently dictate policy in the country. Why should I vote for someone that I don't believe in just to please some people who want another puppet in office?
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 3:07pm):
Yeah, any Dems who think Bush is the worst President or Republicans who believe that claim should go to Clinton clearly have no clue of history before MTV was created. This goes back to 2000 with Rob Reiner saying Al Gore was the most qualified person to ever run for President. Huh? Of course, I would expect anything rational from Rob or the people who insist Bush is the "worst president ever" Off the top of my head, here are 10 that were much worse:
Buchanan
Harding
Hayes
Grant
Carter
WH Harrison (I died in 30 days!)
Filmore
Garfield
Taft
Wilson
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 3:23pm):
Anyone who doesn't have Hoover on their list of 10 worst presidents doesn't know anything about US history.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 4:23pm):
Au contraire, Hoover did as much as FDR did to get us out of the depression. In fact, FDR didn't get us out the Depression, World War II did. Hooever wasn't a good president, but there are 10 worse.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 6:01pm):
Reagan was by far the worst president. He created an economic crisis in the US that was unparalleled since the Great Depression! Of course, the crisis actually with Carter, but damn, Reagan was supposed to fix the problem, not make it worse! Even George W. doesn't approach failure on a grand scale the way Reagan did.
Anonymous (October 29, 2004 @ 7:23pm):
The Kerry's 5 Homes
When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property.
The Kerry's have five US homes. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to
pay the water, gas & electric.
To be President, it would require the taxpayers to pay for all the security at the 5 homes, which includes a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition we will have to pay for security improvements at each of the 5 homes even if they never go to them all, that is, that just in case they do. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us.
Nevertheless, becoming president would automatically include taking care of the Kerry properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour
shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their
lives so long as they own those properties.
Do the math!
Teresa Northrup
Madison, WI
Anonymous (October 30, 2004 @ 3:24am):
By Miss Northrup's argument, it was extremely foolish to elect Bush president four years ago. After all, the Gores' residences already had undergone all the necessary Secret Service improvements because Gore had been vice president for eight years. I suspect that she would put forth any argument, no matter how vacuous, against John Kerry.
Anonymous (October 30, 2004 @ 3:26am):
"Hoover did as much as FDR did to get us out of the depression."
Bullshit. Hoover oversaw the start of the Great Depression early in his administration and did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the American people over the next three years. It's true that FDR could not have ended the Depression without WWII, but his New Deal did a lot to alleviate some of the effects.
Anonymous (October 30, 2004 @ 1:09pm):
Teresa,
Was that a serious post? Are you really that stupid? Lets see, cost of securing Kerry's homes would be what compared to the cost of our military actions in Iraq (I believe Bush just went after $75 BILLION more a week or so ago).
I'll pay to secure Kerry's home, think, we might have enough money left over to educate some people here at home.
Anonymous (October 31, 2004 @ 9:44pm):
I notice that the ten worst presidents list compiled above focuses quite a bit on the 19th century, when presidents were relatively powerless (Lincoln and Jackson excepted), and worked in an age of graft (some weird choices--Taft? Hayes?)
Fine, let's compare apples to apples. Is Bush the worst president since the beginning of the "modern presidency"?
Yes.
Hoover was an intelligent, dedicated public servant who couldn't adapt to the Depression (Ditto for Carter, for a different set of problems). You can say that WWII got us out of the Depression, and that's partially correct. But FDR got people to believe in their country and their government again--read the historical accounts following his first radio addresses.
Bush has done exactly the opposite. He's the anti-FDR.
Anonymous (October 31, 2004 @ 10:13pm):
only a die-hard Republican would leave Hoover off of the 10-worst list. Going back to the original post -- um, the argument that they are both equally bad made it possible for Bush to take office in the first place (close enough for election fraud to put him over the top). No question that Gore would have the nation far more united by now than the "uniter." Flame away, conservative douchebags, but there is no question that Bush is largely responsible for the deep divide between us now -- barely three years after seeing the whole world ready to rally behind the U.S. Flag.
