COMMENTARY | The Florida GOP primary election takes place today, and the nation waits yet again to see who will claim the next victory in a political race which has proven to be dramatic if nothing else.
Most would think of Florida's GOP primary voters as individuals who must make a single decision in regards to the 2012 presidential election. However, is it that simple? In a complicated world where simplicity is an increasingly scarce commodity, it stands to reason that choosing a candidate involves more than simply going with "your guy."
As with most presidential elections, the 2012 GOP primary field is comprised of a mixture of mainstream candidates and lesser known individuals who, though likely qualified, have not led public lives and therefore carry out their campaigns with a bit of a disadvantage. Although it is never truly safe to make assumptions concerning a primary election, polls have displayed to us just how much value is placed on familiarity and recognition. Although neither candidate is perfect in the eyes of most conservatives, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich -- both widely recognized politicians -- have dominated the polls for several weeks.
It is clear that Romney has taken the lead in the week leading up to the Florida primary, but Gingrich claimed a substantial enough victory in South Carolina to still be considered a contender. The interesting thing about both these men and their mutual status as favorites is that they each have political records which are not entirely compatible with the highly conservative nature of today's Republican voter base. The 2010 Congressional election illustrated current GOP voter sentiment, and though some of that fervor may have faded, it certainly still exists as a substantial influence within the party's base.
That being the case, some individuals showing up at the polls must make a three-pronged decision. If they do not prefer Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, they must ask themselves whether they should vote for their favorite candidate, who is less likely to come away with Florida's all-or-nothing delegate victory, or forsake their favorite candidate to choose one of the two men who actually have a shot at winning in Florida. If the individual chooses to employ the latter strategy, he or she must then choose between the two front-runners -- neither of whom are clear favorites among the party's most conservative voters.
A situation such as this begs the question: if voting is a civic responsibility, and it is, should the individual vote purely on principle or compromise enough to vote for a less agreeable candidate who is more likely to defeat the incumbent in a general election? Is the aforementioned responsibility to be seen as one strictly of principle, or one of making compromises for the greater good?
There are arguments for both strategies, but there are also pitfalls. For instance, although compromising may collectively lead a party to a more assured success, choosing not to vote for who the individual sees as "the best candidate" in terms of principle makes the statement that principle has no place in politics. And if that is to be the case, does such compromise not essentially contribute to the status quo in Washington and perpetuate our current problems by ensuring that career politicians maintain power?
Casting a vote involves a very simple procedure.
If only the decision behind that vote could be so simple.
election results 2011 board of elections board of elections senate bill 5 senate bill 5 joe paterno press conference joe paterno scandal
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.