Dear Everyone,

It seems I’m in a real dilly of pickle, when it comes to this year’s presidential election. I haven’t the foggiest notion of for whom to vote. It’s got me bamboozled. Therefore, I want all of you to email me the following information:

For whom you’re voting.

For whom I ought to vote.

Why I ought to vote for your candidate of choice. (Please refrain from telling me to go to www.suchandsuch.com, I’d like to know what you personally think.)

I shall take your votes into consideration in my vote, as it seems the democratic thing to do. Though I don’t promise to vote for the candidate the majority of you prefer. Which is why everyone should thoroughly explain the reason for voting for their candidate of choice.

(Bear in mind that "no one" is a perfectly acceptable candidate for you to suggest and one that I am thoroughly considering. As I see it, even if this election is the closest ever, one vote in South Carolina will not change the outcome of the presidential race. However, with my vote I could easily decide a school board contest or, with luck, the lottery referendum. Therefore, I should treat my vote for a presidential candidate as a means for personal expression, like art or painting. The importance is not influencing the outcome, but making me feel I’ve done the right thing no matter what the outcome. Which is a bit of a wishy-washy thing to say I know, but I think valid.)

As I see it, in a democracy, the populace is expected to vote for the candidate that they deem "most wise". Wisdom is seen through two venues: personal character, and the wisdom of the candidate’s policies. Of the personal character of the people running, I have no major qualms. I’m certain the government corruption will be kept under the level of Peru. Given the amount of work needed to get to the top of the political ladder, the only person capable of winning would need serious psychological issues anyhow. (Notice both of the big party candidates came from a political family. *Tosan!*) The wisdom of policies is related to the wisdom of the core ideology behind the policies, though specific policies frequently differ from total vision—everyone loves the first amendment until it gets in their way. Core ideological differences in candidates can roughly be classified in four ways:

Likes Corporations. || Dislikes Corporations.
Likes Government. || Likes Government.
---------------------------------------------------------
Likes Corporations. || Dislikes Corporations.
Dislikes Government. || Dislikes Government.

Of course, both Republicans and Democrats try for the center of the spectrum and frequently flop positions on specific issues, but for the most part Republicans like corporations and dislike government, while Democrats like both corporations and government. Libertarians love corporations and hate government. Green Party kids hate corporations and love government. I’m not sure how the Reform Party fits into all of this, probably they fill the gap between Republicans and Libertarians. At this point in my maturation, I must say I have a healthy distrust of both corporations and government and wish to play the one against the other, while remembering that both exist to serve the common good.

As I see myself, I’m a bit of a progressive: I think that government should do whatever it can to make life better for people, while recognizing that sometimes the best thing it can do is butt out. I dislike that mega-corporations think that their shareholders are more deserving of wealth than others are and that they are willing to play Russian roulette with the environment. Plus, I hate subliminal advertising, but not the kind that Bush’s staff tried to pull, the more insidious kind—the really well scripted commercial.

Of the big three candidates, Bush (or as I like to call him, "Dubya"), Gore (he invented the internet and he can take it away), and Nader (he invented seat belts and he can take them away, too), I am completely confused. I like to think of myself as a Republican and the phrase "Compassionate Conservatism" inspires oodles of good feelings in me, though I’m not sure how it will be implemented. Meanwhile, America won’t need a tax cut until the economy starts down turning, as it inevitably will, so promising one now is silly. None of the risky schemes for saving social security seem to deal with the real problem, that there is no real trust fund and eventually someone will foot the bill for the millions of baby boomers. Gore is sort of strong on the environment, which I like, but it seems like he’s had eight years to do something about it. Nader would revolutionize everything, but I’m not a socialist.

So, there you have it. I’m political clay, mold me.

Regards,

~Carl * Johnson~

PS If you’re real good, I may even tell you who the winner of this little contest is. The three prize categories are style, humor, and substance. Best of Luck!

*It Is Finished!*

The polls are closed.

I absentee balloted in the district of York on Friday, the 27^th of October in the year of our Lord, 2000.

Before, I get to all those sloppy details about for whom I voted and why, let’s take a look at for whom you voted and why:

Of the 36 people asked, 12 people responded in 13 emails to give me 10 votes. Actually, a 33% turnout is better than the actual election gets. Plus, I now know who my real friends are. The responses were, three votes for Bush, two votes for Gore, two votes for Nader, two votes for Brown, one vote for no one, and one vote for me (which doesn’t count, since I’m not 35). Ranking the votes on an ideological scale from one (Libertarian) to five (Green Party), the arithmetic mean was 3.2, a vote closest to Republican. The mode and median were also for George W. Bush.

I considered several methods for determining the best candidate for whom to cast my ballot. In considered ranking my preference for each candidate by percentage and then using a randomly generated number to choose. For example, let us say that if the random number were between 0 and .4, Bush would win, if between .4 and .6 then Gore, between .6 and .9 then Nader, and if between .9 and 1 then I would not vote. The advantage of this method is it allows me to escape culpability for an ill-informed decision. The disadvantage is it requires me to give each candidate a percentage approval rating and program a random number generator (which isn’t hard, but I’d need to check the C++ documentation).

Also considered was voting for the candidate, who would be most devastated by a loss and most pleased by a win. Most likely, Bush would react very poorly to losing, while Nader would be euphoric after a win.

An another possible selection criterion, which I had no opportunity to use, was allowing non-citizens to tell me for whom to vote. Their outsider’s perspective on the race could have let me see beyond petty American concerns. Plus, I could use my vote to be their voice in this, their new land. Unfortunately, none of my lazy immigrant friends replied to my email, in spite of an explicit promise to one that I would vote for whomever she wrote a letter of recommendation. Of course, the downside of voting for whomever a non-citizen recommends is the possible Manchurian Candidates Effect, but I’m sure most of my friends came to America to flee communism, not spread it…

Here are the awards for style, substance and humor:

Style- Allison Crabb of the University of South Carolina, for her succinctness and innovative use of the word please.

(Note: any haiku poetry sent would have also won the award, but no one sent any.)

Substance- Kurt Wagner of the Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics, for his voting against a candidate technique.

Humor- Amanda of OpenDiary.com for her insightful observation that Ralph Nader needs a woman.

The final selection criterion considered was for whom could I vote and by doing so cause greater happiness in the world. After all, democracy really is just a utilitarian pipe dream. Now, considering the limited effect of my vote, etc., etc., the only people who could really be positively emotionally affected by my one vote are you, my gentle audience. However, I suspect the majority of you will react with cerebral indifference to my decision. One person though, I am sure will not, and that person is Ali Crabb. She will undoubtedly react strongly to any decision I make in her uniquely Ali way, either with great gladness or anger. This, combined with her use of "the magic word", has entirely influenced my decision. Therefore, I have voted for Albert Gore, Jr. as per her request.

I hope your happy, Ali!

I’m not entirely satisfied with my vote either, but I’m sure that life in these United States will go on fine, whoever gets elected. Thanks for all your help,

Carl Johnson