Primary 2008 - Remember to Vote Aug. 5th

Ron, you said, "It is time to once again engage in a civil discussion that will help our citizens decide the men and women that will be our elected representatives."

I couldn't agree more. Agreeing to disagree does not include the kind of campaigning we've seen develop in the past 20 years or so. I want candidates to tell me what they stand for and why I should spend my vote on them, not waste my time (and theirs) trying to make the other candidate look like a three-headed monster.

Kathy & Ron, you are both right, and I would also like to see discussions of issues that face us all, like energy, the economy, the environment, and local issues. While the MDN does a great job of covering the issues, it is also great to have a civilized discussion of the relative merits of those issues. Sound bites and PR just don't cut it.

Paulo Freire noted that all education is political, and I would venture that much of our lives are political in that we are all citizens in the 'body politic'. I refer to politics in the sense that this is the PROCESS by which groups of people make decisions. To forgo that civic duty is a prescription for tyranny, including, as de Tocqueville noted, the tyranny of the majority.

JMHO...:>))

One of the reasons that we have the executive, legislative and judicial branches is that the legislative branch may do the 'will of the people' as it stands at the moment; the judicial branch is supposed to be independent, far-seeing, and to some degree impartial in that it seeks to look at the application of laws and decide if the law has positive, negative, or disparate impacts, thus standing between 'mob rule' and an equitable civil society for all.

Initially, the 'majority' did not want to allow women to vote or own property, to count African=Americans as 'full persons', to serve in the military, or to vote, to allow Native Americans to be counted as Citizens, etc. Originally, these 'outlandish' stands were considered the harbinger of the ruination of the nation. They were, however, decided (to make several long stories short) on the bases of the rights of citizens and personhood.

'Citizen' and 'person' are neutral nouns indicating human beings (until corporations usurped corporate personhood over human being). They are nouns that are devoid of the qualifiers that we use to exclude currently unpopular minorities. But the judicial review process is supposed to cut through the hype, the PR spin, the manipulated sound-bites,the public hysteria, to give a more measured and deeper view guided by the Constitution.

Or at least that is how it was supposed to work...

The Constitution never foresaw nanos, cell phones, satellites that can read your morning paper, quantum physics, or the Internet. It is a negative document, in that it defined what government may NOT do. Newer versions, in Europe, and other emerging democracies have affirmative constitutions (what the government is REQUIRED to do) or mixed constitutions. As a NEGATIVE document, it is limited and reactive, which it was at the time it was written - a REactive response to oppressive tyranny.

Those who are 'strict constructionists' tend to be those who think the past was better than the future. Those who consider the document to be a work in progress tend to see the future as growing better.

Finding the balance... well, we keep working on it.

The election is now history. If I might, I will address a few of the posts that have been received. I am pleased that others find the current 'climate' of our political discourse to be distasteful and in need of change. Let's hope that this forum will allow us to have a good, honest debate about issues in a civilized, adult manner.

The tyranny of the majority (though I might not use that exact phrase) is and always has been a major concern to me as well. The Sec. of State predicted a turnout in the 30% range; I have not seen the final tally but it is sad that so few bother to take time to exercise this precious right. I find it even more disturbing when taken into account, the brave men & women in our armed forces who have served and sacrificed. Many have paid the ultimate price to allow us the privilege of free open elections.

I don't buy the argument that 'there were not candidates worth supporting' or 'I did make my voice/displeasure known by not voting'. WRONG. There are always (at least some) worthwhile candidates; if not, write someone in that you feel is qualified. If you want your displeasure to be noted, go to the polls and cast a blank ballot. Only then can you say that you "participated" in our democracy.

It does make one wonder when examining the results about how informed, involved or interest level the public has in our process. In one US congressional race there was a candidate that admitted he never had voted, nor had any previous interest in politics and was obviously not qualified; yet he still managed to collect almost 10% of the vote. Folks that only know what they hear on 30 second ads and the mail they receive.... do we want or are we better off with them not voting? These are subjects, I hope we can discuss in greater detail in the future.

The local state legislative races are pretty much decided. Joe Aull was unopposed in both primary and general election. Sen. Bill Stouffer will face Dr. Joe Sadeghi in the general election. With the advantage of incumbency and a huge financial advantage, it will make it a very tough race for the challenger. Maybe we can examine the possibilities of how the legislature will look for next session at a later time.

I ended 5 - 2 on my predictions (better than I might have guessed)...and by the way...I endorsed Mark Powell a few months ago, so I was at least trying to be objective.

Thanks again for your comments. I hope to take a look at how all the races are shaping up in the near future. If there are certain topics, issues, candidates or other matters that you would like to address, post your remarks. Thank you for voting and I hope your favorite candidate(s) won.

An update from the Secretary of State's office, but the numbers aren't much different than what AP reported earlier:

"Secretary of State Robin Carnahan today announced the unofficial voter turnout for yesterday's Primary Election was 18.9 percent. Despite extremely high temperatures around the state, approximately 755,385 of Missouri's 4,000,323 registered voters went to the polls to cast a ballot in the primary for several statewide and local races. The highest turnout reported in Missouri was in Dade County, with an estimated turnout of 41.6%."

I have a theory: Smaller is better when it comes to participating in government. The larger the constituency, the more diluted the sense of influence any one (non-wealthy) person has. The less tangible the sense of possible influence -- or even just attention-command -- the less motivation to participate.

You hear people all the time complain that nothing they do matters. The game's rigged. The influence is bought and paid for. Why bother? they say. Unfortunately, there's some truth to that.

But when the constituency is small, people have a sense they can at least be heard if not heeded.

Look at Arrow Rock: 26 people voted on the tax issue. The village only has a population of 79 (on the road signs; I've heard locals express skepticism that the number is really that high). So they probably beat the county total by a good bit.

I was just reading yesterday's KC Star and it had an article about one county in Kansas had ZERO voter turnout. While this is remarkable in intself, I was very surprised to learn that it was the county the Fort Riley is located. Does anyone else find this to be a bit unsettling?

I read that article, too, and I think it said the county is made of of only Fort Riley - no other voters but the military. That might explain it.

Hi folks, since I'm no longer a voter in Mo. (in Ca. now) I can't participate but I can follow the results. In surveys, Gallop poll and such, only need a limited number to form the opinion. I suspect voting is the same. I never vote unless I actually know something about the subject surmising I might cancel out the vote of someone who does know.

I'm now reading a book, "Fleeced" that everyone voting in the national election probably should read. Very interesting. But, as always, read it with a grain of salt, i.e, be skeptical, do your own due diligence.

DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK IT ABOUT TIME TO REPLACE BOND? HE'S BEEN IN HIS JOB TO LONG? SEEM LIKE HE HAS VOTED WITH BUSH ON EVERY ISSUE! I FOR ONE, THINK WE NEED A YOUNGER MAN TO REPLACE HIM! I DON'T SEE HE HAS DID MUCH FOR MISSOURI, AND STILL HE SITS ON HIS JOB!