I just check candidates’ websites. There they have almost infinite space to really outline what they’re doing and determine who they are trying to be as a legislator. And if they don’t have a website/have a shitty website, they’ve just informed me they know fuck all about the world and don’t deserve my attention.
La dee dah…
—DiB
I just check candidates’ websites.
You know, I haven’t seen even checked the if the candidates for city council and the State Legislature have websites. I’m pretty sure some of them do not, though. Not sure if they have the funds or expertise—which wouldn’t disqualify them. The Mayoral candidates and candidates for U.S. Congress all do, though. Still, wouldn’t you want an independent assessment? For me, what a candidate says she wants to do is only a small part of my assessment of them. I’d rather have some research on the way they’ve behaved in the past—as that’s a pretty decent predictor of future behavior, imo. If they held a political position in the past, this should be doable.
I’d also like some idea about skills and character traits—again looking at past behavior or even people that have worked with the candidate. This would take a lot of time, but I see no reason why this couldn’t be done if the journalists were committed to getting this information.
“You know, I haven’t seen even checked the if the candidates for city council and the State Legislature have websites. I’m pretty sure some of them do not, though.”
Sometimes they don’t, in which case I just iResearch their records and such. The thing is, the smaller the election, the more it’s just one single guy stepping up to the plate saying he’ll take care of it anyway, so it’s necessary just to vote for him or her so that the candidate gets a vote.
—DiB
Sometimes they don’t, in which case I just iResearch their records and such.
Really? How easy is this? I can’t imagine I would have the time, energy and skill to do this.
The thing is, the smaller the election, the more it’s just one single guy stepping up to the plate saying he’ll take care of it anyway, so it’s necessary just to vote for him or her so that the candidate gets a vote.
I’m not sure what you mean, here. (“take care of it?”)
“Really? How easy is this? I can’t imagine I would have the time, energy and skill to do this.”
All ballots are available online before you vote. You should be able to find one somewhere around here. If you cannot find it there, try looking up the webpage of your county clerk’s office, or calling it. If not, call the number located at the bottom of the page or e-mail them requesting a sample ballot.
On the ballot will be listed literally every office up for vote, the municipal bond issues, state constitutional amendments, and a few other peculiar votes (you may for instance have a ‘school election’ rolled into the general where you need to vote for funds appropriation for public schools or whathaveyou). Now you will have the name of every single person running for every single office in Hawaii and in the general election that falls under your jurisdiction to vote on.
Any policy that anybody makes is a matter of public record by law. That means votes they’ve made, legislation they’ve written and/or passed, etc. and so on. So you literally just Google their damn names like so: “John Candidate + position he’s running for” If you’re not finding anything at all, try “public record” or “candidate information”. For state and county related offices, enter “Hawaii” or whatever county you live in to help narrow it down. Simple things like that.
The smaller the office the less information you’re inevitably going to find. Some person running for county clerk because she or he worked as an accountant assistant under the previous county treasurer, and has never worked political office before, won’t have a website or much to say. It’s up to you to decide how much you give a shit. Most county judges, for instance, won’t have diddly squat ’less they did something wrong, so looking for them will render nothing or a news piece from 2006 about some decision they made.
But the stuff you’re talking about, like a mayoral and state federal representatives? In my opinion those fuckers either have to have a website or they have to go. Either they’re out of touch, hiding information, or lazy.
Point is it basically takes as long as typing in the candidate’s name to find out what they’re all about. Doing this process (sample ballot) also gives you time to look up the actual laws being amended on the ballot, an action I doubt most people ever do.
Polemic aside: every piece of legislation written, whether passed or not, is a piece of public record. So if something controversial comes out like, say, The PATRIOT Act or ‘Obamacare’ or some local equivalent, you can find the actual document as it is currently written online. So the next time anybody tells you, “OH MY GOD, SUCH AND SUCH LEGISLATION DOES THIS THING AND THAT’S BAD!”, ask them where the legislation says that and if they read it themselves. It’s a small step, but one of the many we need to start taking so that we can start telling these ‘death jury’ type idiots to go fuck themselves.
“I’m not sure what you mean, here. (“take care of it?”)”
I mean that politics aside, all public offices are created to serve the public, and the smaller and more local the office the more the job is a matter of doing the public’s busy-work, really. You don’t have to get overly worried about whether you should vote one county clerk versus another, or one judge versus another. When it gets to the issues you’re aware of, like the rail you mentioned, that’s where you need to focus your energies. It does not take long to find information you need. “[Candidates] position on [issue] in Hawaii.” If nothing comes up, you have to assume they don’t have a position on that issue.
Edit: I also may be presumptuous here and not all counties offer ‘sample ballots’. I believe it’s required by law but I have not found that law if so. Perhaps state by state, county by county that will change.
I looked up my county clerk’s office and it stated that sample ballots will be available in September, which makes sense. If your county clerk does not have information about sample ballots or their availability, I would highly recommend you contact them directly and ask them when one will be provided. If they inform you that they do not do sample ballots, kindly inform them that you will vote for someone else then, since their office is a public one. :)
—PolarisDiB
@DiB
Perhaps finding the information isn’t the biggest challenge (although for some local candidates, I think it is), but also processing that information. Even if you find the voting record of the candidate, for example, you have to analyze that record; you can’t just take it at face value. The context of the votes matter as well.
For something like bills and laws, sure you can find them, but do you have time to read them? And if you do, how easy will it be to understand? How many pages was the healthcare bill? Wasn’t it in the thousands? To me, it’s not practical to expect voters to read the entire bills—the legislators probably don’t read the entire bills themselves!
But the stuff you’re talking about, like a mayoral and state federal representatives? In my opinion those fuckers either have to have a website or they have to go. Either they’re out of touch, hiding information, or lazy.
Point is it basically takes as long as typing in the candidate’s name to find out what they’re all about.
I don’t feel that way. The websites are clearly trying to craft a favorable image. To some extent, you can get a sense of where they stand on specific policy issues and maybe get a sense of their overall philosophy and ideology. But, imo, a candidate’s stance on specific policies isn’t as crucial as their overall approach to policies and policymaking; it’s not as important as the skills, knowledge and other personal attributes that affect their effectiveness in the position.* I don’t think you can easily get reliable answers to these questions
You don’t have to get overly worried about whether you should vote one county clerk versus another, or one judge versus another.
Really? So you think one schnook is as good as another? I don’t think that. Not all candidates for locally elected positions are equal or even competent.
“How many pages was the healthcare bill? Wasn’t it in the thousands?”
Less than 800, actually. Haha! But seriously, if you want a breakdown of that law, one person did it for us in a trend that I believe is increasing. If nobody’s done that, it’s time for people to start stepping up.
All of this:
“Even if you find the voting record of the candidate, for example, you have to analyze that record; you can’t just take it at face value.”
“The websites are clearly trying to craft a favorable image. To some extent, you can get a sense of where they stand on specific policy issues and maybe get a sense of their overall philosophy and ideology.”
“Not all candidates for locally elected positions are equal or even competent.”
is the same process of reading the information critically. You were complaining that the information just isn’t presented. I told you where it was. Information without critical thinking is inert. For instance, say you find their website. You have to notice what they’re saying (“I will FIX THE ECONOMY! I will LEGALIZE POT!”) and what they are not saying (“I will protect the rights of gay couples to marry!” “I will improve education!”) And of course, you have to look at what they’re saying versus how they say it (“I will FIX THE ECONOMY by catering to SMALL BUSINESSES!” “I will FIX THE ECONOMY by attacking government debt!”), and what they’re saying versus whether they mention how they’re going to do it (“I will FIX THE ECONOMY by attacking government debt!” “I will FIX THE ECONOMY by reducing government debt by cutting pork spending from discretionary spending and increasing revenues”).
Simple Google searches, especially of local candidates, should yield information about their personal habits and manners, controversies they’ve been involved in, etc. When you get national it all becomes commentary. That’s why I was very impressed during the 2010 election to discover that one of the candidates running for governor of my state actually included .pdf downloads of the legislation she intended to pass and a breakdown of how she intended to tackle the things she meant to achieve on her website. Now the thing is, she didn’t win. But this is not too long after Howard Dean was given all these kudos for having a website at all, and he didn’t win, followed by Obama’s campaign which smartly used social networking and Internet channels to get his message out. This is why I feel the candidate’s website is the first point of entry into who they are. It gives them the space to include all of the details possible, and if they don’t include those details then they’ve either not thought of them or are hiding them from you. In this process, yes you’re looking at the face they project at the world because what they project will inform you about who they are trying to be.
Meanwhile,
“So you think one schnook is as good as another?”
No I don’t, but the fact of the matter is that in most cases, your local county clerk and judge running for office don’t have any information at all because they’ve never done anything newsworthy, which means in those offices for the most part they’re doing their job. Certainly one choice of county judge over another is going to have ripple effects over county crime rates, legal precedences in your area, etc. and so on. My friend is a judge, and he doesn’t take his precarious position in concluding issues lightly. But the fact of the matter is that usually two judges running against each other in the same area are basically going to be insignificantly different from each other and if you don’t really know them or have any information about them then you’re not going to find any.
For an example of how those elections can become a national level trainwreck, see Florida circa 2004. Who made the decision to make the ballots how they were? But how often has that happened in the US? Not often and in fact the awareness of that situation involved many state legislators to take more interest in what their county clerks were doing.
From a personal perspective, who returned my e-mails when I sent missives out about including more opportunities for independents in primary elections? The county clerk. Who didn’t? The Democratic and Republican Parties. Surprised I am not.
So I am BIG on local level elections and knowing as much as I can. But literally dude, you are not going to find anything significant or compelling about County Judge Seat 12, John Adamson versus Adam Johnson.
“I wish the press would address this question and relate their coverage to this question.)”
Don’t we all.
All I can offer is that I’ve noticed that the more local the election, the more local you have to go with the press, which seems obvious but sometimes a national newspaper will cover a governor’s race or even a particularly weird state senator race or something. Secondly, newspapers and magazines provide better coverage than televised news. Thirdly, letters to the editor, local area-related web forums, and local-area blogs typically reveal people who have more personal issues with whatever local candidates, though you also have to read those critically in terms of what is being said and not said and how and so on.
Lastly, part of the point I’m making here is that you cannot depend on others to do your critical thinking/analysis for you. You can use the information that is out there as a springboard for your own opinions but commentary is a secondary source, not a primary. Without the primary sources, you are relying on somebody else’s perception of the truth regardless of how well they intend to keep it.
—PolarisDiB
The democratic process only really works if there’s an understanding that both the elected and the electors have a responsibility to fulfill their role in the system. The candidate should be accessible and provide the voter with the tools he or she needs to make an educated decision. Just about all serious candidates to this. As someone who has worked in this field, I can tell you that, in a modern campaign, developing a Web site is essential for even the smallest offices. The advantage to local races is that voters can meet and interact with the candidates first hand. Any candidate that is not available and open with his/her records and positions is not doing their job and has not earned your vote.
But the voter has a responsibility too. Given that the information is available, it is not too much to ask voters to educate themselves on the issues, analyze positions and be engaged in the needs of their community. Is this work? Yes! Will many voters refuse to do so? Yes! But that’s a societal problem that has to do with educational and cultural factors. It is not up to candidates, elected officials, the press or anyone else to create an engaged voter.
(DiB, I’ll respond later.)
@Brad
But that’s a societal problem that has to do with educational and cultural factors. It is not up to candidates, elected officials, the press or anyone else to create an engaged voter.
Man, I think it has to do with a lack of time and energy—and a sense of overload with shifting through information and making decisions. Voting decision are just one of many—and probably not the most important in one’s life—and I’m sure you know this. I agree that voters have to be interested and willing to spend some time—but how much time and energy is reasonable? to be well-informed? My feeling is that too much time and energy is required. Or maybe my problem is that my sense of “well-informed” isn’t reasonable.
For me, just knowing the platform of a candidate isn’t enough, imo. Candidates, when elected, change positions—and sometimes with good reason. The websites and information candidates give out tell voters little about the skills, qualifications and other personal attributes that would make them effective. I don’t know, that’s just how I feel. I think the websites, news coverage and debates are generally pretty lame or insufficient.
Jazz, the time you’re spending on this thread and getting annoyed with the press is enough time to do most of the major research necessary to know who you want to vote for.
—DiB
Jazz, I’m, of course, speaking in the ideal. I don’t have the time to research every judge race in my county anymore than you do, but I make a point to make educated decisions about my Senators, Congressman, Mayor, Alderman and State Legislators. Truth be told, I could make time for those judges and clerks too, but I choose not to. What I’m saying is that voting is exactly as important as each of us decide it is in terms of time committment and priorities. How much time we devote to it depends on the level of importance we grant it. There is no outside interloper that can provide a short cut.
For Georgia’s election today I looked up the websites of the candidates whose offices had more than one person running for it. And it was fairly easy to at least figure out who was crazy and who wasn’t… at least I thought so. And for judges and county commissioners and stuff I pretty much just voted for the incumbent.
But, like most people, I was mostly going to the polls to vote on Atlanta’s controversial transportation tax that’s been vigorously debated for months and months.
Anyway, I like local politics a lot more than national politics because people aren’t quite as bad about demonizing people who don’t agree with them. i.e. it’s a lot easier to disagree with people about a transportation tax than abortion or something.
If anything I think it’s a matter of the media providing too much information. The media has to produce an endless vortex of new information to fill 24 hours of coverage, which then tends to obscure things that actually should be focused on in a campaign.
@DiB
But seriously, if you want a breakdown of that law, one person did it for us in a trend that I believe is increasing. If nobody’s done that, it’s time for people to start stepping up.
And I would think the press—as the 4th Estate—would be appropriate for that function.
is the same process of reading the information critically.
Partly, but part of it involves getting contextual information. For example, if you’re looking at a voting record, just because a politician voted for or against a particular bill that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she supports or opposes said bill. Maybe horse-trading went on behind the scenes; maybe the bill was going to pass, and they voted no to appease certain constituents. You can’t really get that kind of information.
We can make educated guesses and inferences based on the information we have available, but I’m not totally comfortable with that approach—I wish the press would dig deeper. For example, James Fallows did a piece on a Obama—Obama Explained he informally polled and spoke to people inside the WH about Obama’s first four years. It’s a pretty thorough portrait, imo. (Fallows uses this approach on other issues, as well.) The drawback with this approach is that you have to trust the journalist to a significant degree. (He’s often not naming names, in the piece.). But I’d like to see something similar for local politicians. The thing is the people who work closely with the politician have a better and clearer picture of that politician. That’s the kind of information I want. I want information from the people who are also close to the issues (the civil servants, staff, etc.) These people have a better understanding of the issues—the reason certain bills get passed, why others don’t, etc. Imo, this is the kind of information journalists should be digging for; and then they need to analyze and process this information into coherent and concise ways for the public.
This type of coverage would be really, really helpful for voters, imo—but it’s not sexy or titillating; it’s not going to sell papers or attract eye-balls. It’s not a scoop or something that will win you a Pulitzer. However, it is very useful information for voters. But I don’t think the press really cares about this, and what aggravates me is the self-righteous, self-important attitude that some of them have. They actually do serve an important function—I only wish they would actually do a good job.
No I don’t, but the fact of the matter is that in most cases, your local county clerk and judge running for office don’t have any information at all because they’ve never done anything newsworthy, which means in those offices for the most part they’re doing their job.
You really think that? I know people who work in government, their perspective and insight makes me have a different attitude. I have a friend who has a background in law (she’s not practicing now), but she has connection in the legal community, so she’ll make comments about some of the judges. The people in these positions aren’t all competent. They may not be doing damage that makes the headlines, but that doesn’t mean “they’re doing their job.”
All I can offer is that I’ve noticed that the more local the election, the more local you have to go with the press, which seems obvious but sometimes a national newspaper will cover a governor’s race or even a particularly weird state senator race or something. Secondly, newspapers and magazines provide better coverage than televised news. Thirdly, letters to the editor, local area-related web forums, and local-area blogs typically reveal people who have more personal issues with whatever local candidates, though you also have to read those critically in terms of what is being said and not said and how and so on.
The local press, as I mentioned in the OP, is not very good, imo. It’s really discouraging. As the third point, I used to hang out at a couple of forums on local issues, but I found there was a lot more chaff than wheat, if you know what I mean. (Rational and civil discourse was hard to come by.)
@Brad
There is no outside interloper that can provide a short cut.
I really disagree with this. I really think there are ways to make the process of gathering and analyzing the relevant information a lot easier. I believe it can be done. The bigger questions are, is there someone willing to do this? Can we find a sustainable revenue stream or resources?
One of the ideas I’ve been toying with (and I actually did this in the ‘04 election) is doing a little research and then having a get-together with some of my friends and family to discuss the election. For the people attending, who haven’t done a lot of the research—this is a short-cut—one that can be really helpful.
The local newspaper also provides a voter’s guide. It’s pretty lame, but it could be a lot better—if they were committed to making it better.
@Matt
If anything I think it’s a matter of the media providing too much information.
I’d change that to “too much bad information.” It’s a huge stack of hay that one must wade through to find the needles.
Well, yeah, there’s definitely more bad information. I think there’s probably more good information than ever before too, but it’s just that it gets buried in an avalanche of the news media equivalent of junk mail.
Jazzaloha
I don’t know what the local press is like in other states (or countries), but in Hawai’i, it’s pretty lame, imo. In three words: pablum and gossip. I have very little motivation to read or watch the news because of this. Why should I when I don’t really come away more informed about an issue, situation or politician? I’m usually left with more questions and feeling irritated. I honestly think this is one of the reasons I’m feeling more apathy towards local politics. (The quality of the national press has a similar effect, but I can find better information—and there are bigger reasons for my apathy or disgust for national politics.) We’ve got a mayoral election coming up in the fall, and it’s a fairly significant one as it could affect the rail project that the city has started. We have some seats in the U.S. senate and U.S. House of Reps. coming up as well, as well as voting for our state and local representatives. Quality information is scarce, and it’s depressing. It’s depressing when I think that many voters simply rely on name recognition to base their votes.
What frustrates me is the difficulty of getting good information about candidates and issues, as well as the opportunity to have intelligent discussions with others about these issues. The press, for whatever, reason, doesn’t really care about servicing the society in this way—at least I don’t think they’re really serious about providing this service—and I feel like the burden (a heavy one) is almost entirely on the individual citizen—to dig around and find whatever bits of information he/she can get. People don’t have that kind of time and energy and the amount of time and energy may not be worth it even if they had them!
Can anyone relate to what I’m saying? Or are you basically satisfied with the quality of information you have about local candidates?