Photo Courtesy of Flickr.com/myJon
As we celebrate another memorable Veterans Day in the community and in the borough, we’d like to look at another way, besides honoring those in our armed forces or serving in the military ourselves, that we as citizens can participate in our government.
Voting, and the entire election process, is supposed to make us feel like we are contributing something to the betterment of our society – whether it is via a local school board election or the big Kahuna – the Presidential one. Some of us vote because we believe it to be not only a right but a responsibility, and even if we haven’t a clue as to what will greet us on the ballot, we show up, smiling, pen in hand, ready to fill in those circles one way or the other. It bothers us when our friends and family are apathetic about engaging in the process even more than it bothers us when they passionately disagree with our political perspectives – because apathy, sometimes, is worse than even ignorance. So we proudly affix our “I voted!” stickers and selfie it up for Facebook and Instagram. We voted, we’re cool!
Last week’s election was no different, though, if we’re being honest, the Presidential election cycle has been lengthened to such a degree we half-expected to be voting on primary candidates. Oops, no. That’s not until next April for us New Yorkers. So those glamorous, familiar names — Trump, Clinton, Jindal — did not appear on our ballots. Instead we marked our selections in four somewhat less exciting categories: Civil Court judge for the borough, Civil Court judge for the district, Supreme Court justice for the district, and District Attorney, the latter of which was Richard A. Brown, running unopposed and thereby making our selection of him seem all the more unimportant. He thanked the voters the next day for our confidence in him. But really, we couldn’t have felt less involved in his reelection.
In watching some of the presidential debates, we’ve been struck, also, by the uneven way they have often been handled. This contributes to the feeling that the eventual election of one of these candidates is actually out of our control: some candidates undoubtedly receive more camera time and/or more time to respond to questions. Whoever is “teacher’s pet” gets an extra moment to zing an opponent or make some sweeping, grandiose statement, or make a self-deprecating joke that appeals to the “Hey, he’s one of us!” sentiment we’re always hoping to feel.
Following criticism at the beginning of the debate season from the media and political activists who were opposed to the previously-set limit of 10 candidates per debate, an additional forum was created, so that candidates not receiving at least 1% of the votes in nationally recognized polls “open” for the headliners, playing second fiddle to the more popular candidates’ later primetime show. This week, the four “lower-tier” candidates – Christie, Huckabee, Jindal, and Santorum – opened up the night, and eight others qualified for the main debate. This time, Lindsey Graham and New York’s own George Pataki did not qualify for either debate.
So what does this mean for us as voters? If we only have time to watch one debate, it likely means that we will only be watching the candidates who have already had their day in the sun. We won’t be learning anything new about their stances on key issues, generally, because we’re getting the same rhetoric from the same candidates that everybody already likes because somebody told them they’re the candidates they should like. The selection we eventually make when we get our ballots in hand is based more on what we were presented than on what we might otherwise know. Like casting a vote for DA-Judge Brown, it might feel like an irrelevant act – but aside from doing extensive political research, what else can we do?