> Its no decision if you don't have an ID. I have a driver's license, but many people > don't have an ID. Charline is going to get an ID, but not before the primaries, as if > the primaries mean squat in PA at this point.
It's over, yes. I generally expect that I'll have absolutely no reason to vote in the primary, as there is usually only one candidate for each position, and the Presidential race is long since decided. > I also don't like the fact you have to pick a politician of your party. I wanted to > vote for Hilary Clinton last election. I didn't like McLiberal 'er McCain, or OCarter > 'er Obama.
That's state law. Most of the stuff about who you can choose and how the votes are counted is determined at state level, meaning that there is at least some chance of improvement, if people actually tried. I've never tried to get a state law changed, or even a local one. > At this point I don't like Obama or Romney. I'm thinking of doing a write in for > Mudges *the cat I posted a while back* as my way of saying I voted for none of the > above.
Voting for someone who actually stands a chance of winning is the smallest effort you can make to influence policy. Voting for someone who can't win, because s/he either isn't an actual person or isn't a candidate in enough districts, is not even a symbolic gesture, as no one sees it. Voting for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat is useless until after the state laws (of many states) have successfully been changed to divide electoral votes proportionally among candidates rather than the "winner-takes-all" method most states employ. There is essentially no movement on this front. Not voting at all is ceding policy decisions entirely to whatever evil one might imagine is in control.
When November comes, I'll vote for whichever of the two viable Presidential candidates has less frequently declared an intent to take money and liberty away from people, and/or more frequently expressed a desire to do the opposite.
|