Are you a strategic or idealistic voter?

Are you a strategic or idealistic voter?

Some conservatives are saying a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. They figure that Huckabee and Romney are the most conservative of the Republican frontrunners. Conservative Republicans will be voting for both Huckabee and Romney, while more moderate Republicans will be voting for McCain. They figure this means that the conservative vote is divided among two candidates and the moderate vote is unified behind McCain. Since they think that Romney has a better chance of winning than Huckabee, they are advocating that conservatives throw all their votes behind Romney in order to beat McCain. If you want a truly conservative candidate, they say, you should not vote for Huckabee, because McCain is more likely to win if the conservative vote is split.

That is a strategic voter.

Consider this: What if Romney is really stealing conservative votes away from Huckabee? Why not advocate throwing the collective conservative weight behind him? Would that not accomplish the same goal?

This strategic suggestion simply shows a support not for conservatism but for Romney. Some Romney supporters are influencing (read manipulating) Huckabee voters, feigning solidarity by calling them fellow conservatives with a common cause. In reality, they are saying, “Hey all you Huckleberry nitwits, we don’t like your candidate and neither should you.” Instead of conservatism, they want their common cause to be Romney himself.

To be sure, there is a common conservatism and many of the strategic advocates are genuine in their perception that only Romney could win. But this brings me to the idealist.

An idealist votes according to what is right, in his or her view, not what is expedient. Idealistic voters simply sift through the views of the candidates and pick the one who, as best as they can tell, seems to be the best suited for the job. If it does not look like their candidate is going to win, even with their vote, they have a least made a statement about the views they think are important and the policies they think are right for our people.

And that is exactly the point; their loyalties are not so much to a candidate as to their ideas. They have principles they hold to and they will stand behind candidates who share those principles. If those candidates deviate so do their loyalties.

Strategic voters may think idealistic voters naïve for some of the same reasons. They think it’s a practical matter of how to get their principles represented in the real world. This translates to voting, not for the candidate with views closest to their own, but for the most electable candidate with the views closest to their own. This, of course, is the heart of party politics.

For you Independent Strategists out there, fret not. In some states you can help a party elect their candidate. In CA, only the Democrats have an open primary. So say, for instance, you were leaning toward favoring the Republicans, you can request a Democrat ballot and vote for the person lest likely to win against a Republican, maybe the experienced yet disingenuous Clinton.

What if you are an Independent Idealist? Again, say you were leaning toward the Republican side, you could request a Democrat ballot. You would, of course, vote for the person most akin to your personal views regardless of their electability, maybe the liberal yet charismatic Obama.

In the end, whether idealistic or strategic, the choice is yours. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go figure out who I’m voting for.

(NOTE: all the above examples are for the sake of argument and discussion. I am not here advocating any candidate or party.)

Why I am voting NO on propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

I am voting NO on propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97.

The bottom line is that it will more than triple gambling in our state. This is neither healthy for the individual nor good for society.

The measures mean more slot machines, which means more of everything that comes with them--all sorts of ways to throw your money away. Voting for Propositions 94-97 is voting for a gambling culture.

It means more and more people will make casinos their source of entertainment. And if that were all, I'd have little problem with it. But gambling too easily goes from amusement to addiction.

On the one hand playing a slot machine is not much different than playing an arcade game. You put some money in the machine and it dispenses some amusement. But an arcade game very clearly says "Game Over." Sure, you can continue, but there comes a time when you run out of coins (or credit) or when you realize you just aren't that good at that game and you move on. The slot machine is always promising more.

If these propositions pass, many more people will throw their much needed money away, money that should have fed their children or paid for their schooling, money that could have gotten them out of debt. As their own money runs out they may sneek a little from their family or friends or work or worse. What would they be willing to lose to win it all?

If these propositions pass, many more people will live in isolation from their family and friends. More parents will be absent from their homes, and most of them probably justifying it by saying, "if I can just win one more time then we'd have enough money to [fill in the blank]."

You may think I'm blowing things out of proportion, but it is absolutely inevitable. In fact, part of the provisions of the propositions is that the tribes are required to identify and help "problem gamblers." They are counting on it happening. And I guess including that little stipulation helps ease their consciences.

The only reason people are for these props is because it means more money for CA without raising taxes or cutting spending. All sorts of government agencies are getting behind it assuming the money will go to them. But there are no specific provisions to use the money for things like education or public safety. In reality, the cities near these casinos could conceivably lose money because money spent on tribal lands will not yield any tax revenue that may have come from non-tribal area businesses.

The one reason I would vote for these propositions is that it may help the tribes. But it turns out CA already has an agreement with them that is more than adequate and fair, and in effect for another 12 years. Only the four big tribes benefit by allowing them to expand their gambling capacities and, therefore, revenues. None of the other small tribes will receive anything more than the money they are already receiving.

The money CA receives from tribal gaming sources will be a mere drop in the bucket compared to our deficit. It is not worth it.