Posted by
Crescen7(Regis Matejcik) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:35:36 AM
Many of us live in "uncontested" States. It is easy to be drawn to the conclusion that casting a vote is a futile exercise in either direction since, after all, the winner is a foregone conclusion. If one is a conservative Republican living in California or New York, it is difficult to argue that ones dutiful voting might tip the electoral balance in this election. Any pragmatic, thinking person realizes that it won't.
So why bother?
After the votes are counted and a winner is declared, it is "the numbers" that will be used by the victor to claim the strength of his "mandate" to govern. In a closely decided outcome, the losing party will cite "the numbers" to justify a full throated opposition to the agenda being advanced by the party in power. It is in these "numbers" that every vote sincerely counts. At the start of the Bush administration democrats consistently referred to Gore's popular vote totals to support their opposition to the new administration. After the George Bush was re-elected, by a significant margin, the administration began to speak of a mandate to govern.
In terms of the election at hand, one party is proposing massive "change;" while decrying the "failed policies of the past." Unfortunately, this party has never been tasked with defining either the specific changes being proposed or what specific policies have failed. Many fear that what the Democrat Candidate describes as "failed policies of the past" are in fact the very underpinnings of capitalism. Should the governing coalition of Reed, Pelosi, Obama become a reality, there will be little to resist the move to socialism.
In the event of a REPO (Reed Pelosi Obama) government; their only constraint will be the votes of Congressional members facing re-election. It is in this scenario that a single Presidential vote is magnified, even if cast in opposition to a winning candidate. The U.S. Congress is comprised of a few principled individuals, and a majority of politically motivated self serving people who's greatest concern is their own re-election. When faced with controversial issues, congressmen often refer to the Presidential election results as a template by which to structure their own positions. The Bush/Kerry results, district by district, precinct by precinct, were used by the Democrats to identify vulnerable Republican seats in 2006. The majority of Democrat gains were the result of a conservative Democrats running in districts where Republicans were displeased with the spending habits of the current Congress.
It will be important that those Democrats in Congress that will be serving their third term, and have the temerity to resist the leadership, know that the district they represent is likely to vote them out of office if they can be too closely tied to a very liberal REPO agenda. These Presidential voting results also become the tea leaves that are read by potential conservative challengers in the next Congressional election. If you are a conservative living in a liberal area, a vote for McCain is smoke signal letting the party know that you are there. To this end, it may be even more important to vote if you live in a traditionally liberal area. Your vote may be the difference between having a congressional challenger or having your representative run unopposed.
On a more technical, yet important aspect, the Presidential voting results are likely to weigh heavily in Congressional Districting maps that will be drawn in 2010. Remember, most Congressional members are political cowards. Even a Democrat controlled legislature will gerrymander in a single Republican district, if it means the rest of them face easier re-election conditions.
In any event, the vote is important in many ways beyond the simple winning and losing of the Presidency. The size of the mandate, the signals to your voting representative, and the implications for redistricting are all to be considered before one decides - it just doesn't matter.