Yet
I have to admit that the political people who offer themselves up as our
choices for electoral office often give us little reason to want to vote for
them. In many cases, they give us absolutely no choice to the point where
casting a vote seems like a waste of time.
A
CONCEPT THAT I find to be abhorrent, because I really do believe that casting a
vote is a civic duty and that people who can’t be bothered to vote deserve to
be ignored by their government officials.
Many
of those officials are going to do that regardless. But should we really give
them the reason that justifies their inaction in their own minds?
Part
of what has me thinking about this “to vote, or not to vote” issue is the fact
that early voting for the April 7 run-off elections in Chicago and the actual
municipal elections out in the suburbs begins Monday.
Next
week and the week after will be when the city Board of Elections and the Cook
County clerk’s office will maintain the early voting centers for those people
who don’t want to wait until the actual Election Day to cast their ballots.
RECENT
ELECTION CYCLES show that many people who care enough about an election
actually use them. It may well be that the actual voter turnout on April 7 will
be ridiculously low.
I
suspect that many of the 66 percent of registered voters in Chicago who didn’t
bother to cast a ballot back on the Feb. 24 municipal election date still won’t
be motivated to act.
All
I know is that if Rahm Emanuel gets re-elected mayor with a City Council
consisting of a majority of sympathetic aldermen, there is bound to be some
sort of clown who argues that the current mayor has a “mandate” to pursue his
policies.
That’s
nuts!
IT
JUST MEANS that apathy prevails because people didn’t feel the opposition was
vocal enough to justify much of a vote against the establishment. It doesn’t
mean we love Rahm by any means. If Jesus Garcia can’t fully take advantage of
that, then he doesn’t deserve a mayoral win by default.
There
are also the suburbs, where the county clerk’s office issued a statement this
week pointing out that 63 percent of the positions up for election in the suburbs
have candidates running unopposed. That includes nine of 19 suburban
mayors/village presidents.
Although
in many cases, it should be noted that the suburban mayors were up for
re-election in 2013 along with a portion of their city councils/village boards.
This election is mostly for the remaining portions of aldermen/trustees.
Meaning
you really have to be a political junkie of a respective municipality in order
to get all worked up over who is running. I suspect many suburban residents won’t
be.
THIS
GOT REINFORCED in my mind last week when I got a long-overdue haircut and found
out that the woman who cuts my hair (she conveniently works about one block
from where I live) also is the regular hairstylist for a municipal candidate in
my area.
She
told me stories about how she had been cutting his hair since he was 7 years
old (he’s now 30) and knew him very well, yet doubted she would be voting for
him on Election Day.
“All
I want to do is cut hair,” she told me, explaining she had never bothered to
vote in her life and didn’t feel any need to start doing so now. The part of me
who writes these commentaries here could come up with many theoretical reasons
why she ought to be concerned.
Yet
I have to admit her attitude probably is prevalent in our society because way
too many of these candidates can’t give us a legitimate reason why we ought to
support them. They ought to have to earn our support, rather than thinking they’re
entitled to it!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment