New York City November Election 2010
A vote is not a vote if it’s not an educated vote, it may be counted but not directly allocate.
Democrat, Independent, working families were the dominant choices that captured our attention. If you voted democrat you would have fell right on the dining table of Andrew Cuomo and Charles Schumer or If you voted independent same thing, working family no difference. Each of these choices would have led you right over their laps.
There is a psychology in these three choices, and so far it has already worked in the favor of Andrew Cuomo and Charles Schumer. Among the three choices two of which are there to cater to the people’s ignorance of the candidates.
Let it be clear, this is not to say that Andrew Cuomo and Charles Schumer are not good choices, but only to show how too many selections can cause confusions. Since they names were the most to have falled under these three categories, these names are worth to be mentioned for the discussion, not that their votes had not been well counted for.
But as far as the psychological aspect of these choices, voting under the independent group or the working family group doesn’t tell us much about the candidate’s ideology. It simply tells us that this candidate might be in the interest of working families. To know the truth one would have had to know more about the candidate's previous stance on certain issues.
Too many choices more confusions, less choices will result into less confusions.
Independent is even more of a vague category, because most people do not know what it means to be an independent voter. Some seems to have thought that it’s OK not to be a republican or a democrat, so long as they choose a category they feel comfortable with. For that they choose to become an independent voter. Having made that choice places them in a situation where they seems as easy targets for candidates of different parties whom are also running under the independent ticket, but not necessarily because their views on certain issues share any relationship with those who are classified as independent.
For that reason being an independent is not enough. They would have had to know a little more about the candidates who are part of the selection process to make an educated choice. All that the independent class does for the voter is not making them affiliate with the two major parties democrats and republicans, beside that it remain the voter's responsibility to know a little more about the candidates.
Those two choices, Independent and working family class psychologically are there to influence the voters who might not have known too much about their candidates. Therefore, when Senator Schumer and Andrew Cuomo’s name fall under these two categories, it works in their benefit because then they are now attracting those voters who might have been confused about the position of the two candidates with that of they own.
The problem here is that whether or not the issues that the candidates value are an agreements with the voters doesn't matter much. If the voters pick a candidate without knowing anything about their stance, than that vote would have been counted but not properly allocate. In this particular case, the vote was not meant for the candidate, but for the classification that the candidate falls under. We assert that as being the case because that voter new nothing about the candidate stance before casting their vote.
Again, this is not to say that Senator Schumer & Andre Cuomo do not deserve their votes, but only to show how the selections can cause confusion when a democrat or a republican can run as an independent or working family. As we know, it is very well possible that the voter who knows too little about Senator Schumer's stance on how he view some issues if become educated could have chosen a different candidate that is more supportive of the voter's views. Likewise, the opposite is also true, had that voter been educated about Senator Schumer's stance on some issues that voter could have chosen him instead of the other candidate.
That is why we find it necessary to talk abut the current problem that exist with the independent party class and the family class. The candidates having the ability to run under different party confuses the voters, especially those who knows very little about the candidate affiliation and positon on the issues that might be relavant to that voter.
If the uneducated voter becomes aware of the issues that the candidate holds dear to his heart, it may end up changing the voter's vote in favour of the senator if the senator’s view of a better government relates to that of the voter. Therefore, being educated about how the candidates view certain issue is always the key which can guarantee us a better government. Without that we're simply taking a chance. This is not to say that the choices that we have to pick from is predominantly one of the people, but if we have two choices which we have to pick from, it is advisable that we choose the one we think is best for the government at present time.
Although some voters did vote for Senator Schumer and Andrew Cuomo on the basis of how they view the issues was not the catch. The catch became apparent when voters cast their vote for Senator Schumer because they view him as representing the independent or the working class family, rather than how the senator view the issue that is most relevant to the voter. I'm using Senator Schumer as an example to outline the possible problem that could exist at the token booth, not that I'm making a similarity with Senator Schumer's stance on any issue.
Without knowing anything about the candidates who have classified themselves as independent or the working class family that vote as not been properly allocate. Belonging to these two classifications (independent & working class) will generate many votes. Thus, it is as a matter fact a competitive advantage to be a candidate that falls under these two groups.
You see, part of the psychology is that belonging to an independent class or a working family doesn’t immediately associate the candidate with being a democrat or a republican.To know whether or not the candidate is more of a democrat than an independent would have meant for the them to know where the candidate stands on certain issue.
And not knowing the candidate's stance forces the voters to choose by association without a strong understanding as to whether or not the candidate and the voter share similar concern for the issue at hand. This is why some voters regret having voted for a candidate when found out there’s been a conflict of interest between how this candidate see the issue in concern as oppose to that of the voter. The promises that are made during the campaign are sometimes not delivered, and thereby causes regret.
It seems like a better choice could have been to write under the candidate name that is on the ballot, three major stance on societal issues. For example: under the candidate name X they would be in small prints - pro-life or pro- choice - tax cut to middle class- for or against the war – health care reform – and their stance on immigration rights. This is just an example, perhaps they may be better option we can choose from.
It is from here that voters would get to make their choices. It would no longer be that candidate X is a democrat running under the independent ticket. It would be that candidate X is an independent who is pro- life and support healthcare reform or against healthcare reform. As you can see this is much of a better way of choosing a candidate. It reminds the voter where the candidates stand on some issues. Although it may not address all the necessary details, but at least it would have helped the American public make better choices at the taken booth. This is not a democrat or a republican idea it works in the interest of all the parties.
Having the ballots cast that way would have educated the voters at the last minute just before they cast their votes. That way a voter may not necessarily know everything there is to know about a particular candidate, and still end up making an inform decision that’s in favour of that candidate.
What happens on Election Day. Some of us uses a paper ballot, and come to found out we had to leave it with the inspector without seeing exactly where this vote is heading to. To be honest, we wanted to see the ballot being dropped in a safe compartment that is later picked up by an assistance who would know exactly how many paper ballots that had been placed in that compartment.
Unfortunately, that is not how it was done. In some places the ballots were left on the table to further place into an affidavit envelope. Whatever happens to them after that we may never know?
A statement from the paper ballot “what you should know before you vote” – If you need to make a change after marking your paper ballot, request a new ballot from a poll worker. The poll worker will take your original ballot, mark it void, and give you a new ballot. To ensure privacy, void ballots are placed into a special envelope with all other void ballots. Votes on void ballots are not counted. Ok, what about what we should agree on before we vote.
Here’s where we're confused. “.To ensure privacy, void ballots are placed into a special envelope with all other void ballots. Votes on void ballots are not counted”. OK, but I agree to disagree, because we surely don’t see why the void ballot must be placed in a special envelope to ensure our privacy. If they truly wanted to ensure our privacy, all they had to do was to rip the ballot apart in front of the voters.
Tearing the ballot into pieces would be ensuring our privacy because then this ballot would no longer be useful. If void ballots are not counted then why must it be placed in a special envelop? I guess we so special even our mistakes must be regarded as valid info.
There is something else folks, what about the judges. We know nothing about the judges. Some of us might have never heard of a Judge before, and yet we have to choose one from the group. We made our selection without knowing whether or not these Judges are for or against death penalty. All of that would have been important to make an inform decision, and yet no information was available to know just a little bit about this judge. That's what we mean by strengthening the process of check and balances. It is the additional of all these minor imbalances that exist within the system that causes it to gradually become ineffective.
This was just an experience, telling it like it is from the ground up. Perhaps we can consider changing the rules pertaining to how ballots ought to be cast. If there are discrepancies as to how ballots are cast than the votes won't be as valid as they could have been. For that we say A vote is not a vote if it’s not an educated vote, it may be counted but not directly allocate.