I find a level of passion about things hard to maintain.
When I was younger (and I'm 36 now) I found it so easy to be passionate. I had a hard and fast opinion about just about everything, and made sure everyone around me knew what it was.
Now, I wonder if it's worth the effort to have an opinion at all.
The reason I bring this up is that I have a good friend. We'll call him Republican Al. Republican Al has opinions which are quite polar opposites to my own. He loves GWB. He doesn't think that GWB's Thanksgiving stunt was a publicity stunt. He thinks that outsourcing is good for America. He thinks that schools should be all paid for by attendees (i.e. no public education) and that everything except the military and police force should be privatized.
Did I say we are good friends?
The thing that bothers me is that when we are together, I don't put voice to my opinions strongly. I don't rant at him, or tell him he's a douche. I don't back down from my position on issues, but then again I don't push them at him either.
Does this make me weak? Do I lack conviction?
What got me thinking about this was to do with voter turnout. It seems that not enough people actually bother to get off their butts and vote around here. By around here, I mean in the USA. What's the percentage? Only 60% of eligible voters got off their asses last time around. 85.5% of those registered to vote actually voted.
So is it a lack of passion for the process? All I can compare this to is my experience in Australian politics.
In Australia, voting is compulsory. You get a $50 fine if you do not vote in any election. That includes those elections that are just for a local council position. This means that nearly all the registered voters actually vote. It's much more representative government and people actually get more involved in the process and the issues because they are going to vote on it.
Additionally, in Australian elections there is no chance of you "wasting" your vote. The system is that of preferences. Basically what happens is this. Each candidate has a place on the ballot. When you vote, you vote for all of the candidates in order of your preference. So, say the ballot is:
Brad Jones (Dem)
Seth Green (GOP)
John Stamos (Green)
Amber Baldwin (Ind.)
You vote for your first preference by putting a "1" in the square next to their name. You then put a "2" in the square next to your second preference, and so on. First the votes are counted and the votes for all of the candidates that people voted as their #1 choice. If one of those people gets 50% of the vote, it's all over, they have won. If no one gets 50%, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and all of the votes for them are redistributed according to the #2 votes on the ballots for that candidate. This continues until a candidate is selected as a clear winner -- more than 50% of the votes.
Your vote is counted even if your candidate has no chance of winning. You can also make your intention very clear -- if you hate the GOP, you can put them last on your preferences, ensuring that your vote will not be applied to them.
There's no such thing as an electoral college. There's no chance of a hideous Katherine Harris usurping democracy.
Maybe if voting was compulsory and people thought their vote would always count, they would get off their asses and vote.