How and Why I Voted in This Election
Richard E. Vatz
This annotated list of some of my votes yesterday should not be taken as a Red Maryland endorsement; it is only one Red Maryland blogger’s votes. This comprises votes only on matters on which I believe I have at least some limited expertise.
The strongest democratic (small “d”) opinion I have is that the almost universal plea for everyone to vote is motivated by either naïvete or bad intentions. If you have no idea why you’re voting for whom you’re voting, or what the arguments are for and against a Constitutional amendment, a referendum or an ordinance, you shouldn’t vote. Democrats always want to expand the electorate to include the quick and the dead. Very early voting (weeks and months ahead of elections), incidentally, is undemocratic.
That said, here are some of my votes, some with a short annotation:
President and Vice President: MITT ROMNEY and PAUL RYAN. I have done many commentaries on this on radio and television and a few in print, but if people want to re-elect an attractive, articulate manifest failure in economic, tax and foreign policy who almost never discusses anything but Gov. Romney’s alleged personal weaknesses and cute names for them (e.g., “Romnesia”), they deserve to have him as president. But the rest of us don’t deserve another four years of economic decline and foreign policy weakness.
The rest of my ticket is mostly Republicans with a Democrat here or there. I am not going to particularize, as I do from time to time moderate debates between these candidates.
Question 3, “Suspension and Removal of Elected Officials,” an amendment which “changes the point at which an elected official charged with certain crimes is suspended or removed from office.” FOR: Red Maryland’s endorsement says it all.
Question 4, “The Dream Act Referendum.” AGAINST: As moderate Democratic Sen. Jim Brochin puts it, this is just “bad public policy.” Maryland should not subsidize the fruits of illegal immigration. The argument is made that the children of such illegals have done nothing wrong, but in what aspect of law do we allow people to enjoy the benefits of illegal activities of others wherein it is preventable? Finally, of course, this referendum does not prevent the acquiring of an education; it stops the state’s special financial reinforcement for those who are here illegally.
Question 5, “Referendum Petition Congressional Redistricting Plan.” AGAINST: The partisan political expediency in this gerrymandering bill is almost beyond belief.
Question 6, “Civil Marriage Protection Act.” FOR: Close call, and I understand the sincere arguments against it, including the possibility of irresponsible educational and media support for depicting to small, confusable children gay marriage as a viable life choice. That notwithstanding, I cannot vote to deny the right of gay men and women to marry. I think such a vote is wrong: understandable, but wrong.
Question 7, “Gaming Expansion.” AGAINST: The utter hypocrisy of some Question 7-supporting politicians who argued all during the Ehrlich administration that legalizing just slots was morally repugnant is numbing to me. But this doesn’t motivate my vote on the matter. I do think that these arguments are definitive: 1. that there is no evidence that money will actually go to education and 2. that not one voter in 1000 knows how much money already goes to education, where it is targeted in education or how much is enough. As I say, these points are sufficient to warrant my “NO” vote.
Happy election week.
Those who wish in an adult way to tell me why they agree or disagree with my votes or reasoning are invited to indicate so here or at email@example.com.
Professor Vatz teaches political persuasion at Towson University and is the author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012, 2013)