Take voting for example. Originally, without property those who were not full citizens--women and slaves being among them--were given the brushoff. Voting was a privilege and therefor a duty, it seemed. By force of amendments to the constitution two large groups, plus adolescents from the age of 18 to 21, were included as full-class citizens. However, be aware if one went afoul of the law all that might change. And residency was expected to be decently permanent.
How much value is there in voting? Long before the final tally arrives, demographics are massaged to tell whether those of various genders, ethnicities, and educational histories will fall into at least a couple of pockets. After official counts come the wipe-up crew. Pollsters who make predictions by precinct have ways of determining whether their prognostications came out right. For certain, the whole process allows enough statistics to keep them busy until the next election approaches.
Aren't Americans just a little too convinced that they need to know what their neighborhood will produce? Monkey see, monkey do--you know. Aren't Americans just a little too besieged by political ads and television punditry? Over seven months remain before the next federal election where all Representatives and about 35 Senators are chosen. In the meantime, sitting in waiting is a non-candidate. The president does not have his name on the ballot, yet it's purported that he has a lot to gain or lose. Maybe so. I disagree.
In a more serious tone, at this writing, it appears it will take a long hot summer to get the populace interested in new definitions of splits within each party. It's for sure some Democrats are disgusted enough with other Democrats that they ignore the party in opposition.
Health care insurance, one asks. That's over. Jobs. Their lack will be obvious. Entanglement in foreign wars. By now that's old hat.
I have a hunch that people vote when they see sharp divisions between candidates. I ask the reader. What's your hunch?
1
1
1
