Letter: Should party affiliation be allowed in elections?
Should local elections—and, for that matter, any election—allow party affiliation by the candidate’s name? Does the party affiliation insure someone will vote for the right person, or does it make it easier for the uninformed?
I would prefer to pick the right person for the job, rather than one who can raise the most funds. Campaign costs soar due to organized parties’ fundraising machines making it near impossible for those who refuse labels to run. Speech is free, being heard is not in politics.
Many civic organizations cater to the established parties by not even allowing non-affiliated candidates an opportunity to be heard. Why? I am not saying the D’s or the R’s do not field good candidates. They often do, but I would like to know is what the person thinks, not survey-generated talking points. We know as individuals that everyone has flaws, things we agree and disagree with, and we tend to trust a person we know will do what they believe is the right thing for all. This learning process takes candid communication, not talking points.
As we prepare for 2012, ask yourself and then your candidate: "Why is it a statistic varies based on who uses it?" Mark Twain knew the answer when he said something like there are lies, damn lies and statistics, while we quote our candidate as gospel. Demand facts. Be an educated voter by looking things up for yourself. Ask if Congress should be able to exempt themselves or receive benefits denied to you and me? If they say yes, vote them out; otherwise, hold them to it by demanding they refuse perks.
A wise politician once said if you do your job right, 50 percent of the electorate will be mad at you. Common sense, compromise and the knowledge that a little of both ideologies are needed now—not a D or an R, just US.