Foolish vote splitting
Share with others:
Regarding "Mixed Message: In Pennsylvania, Both Parties Had Their Victors" (Nov. 8): I think that you have it all wrong with this confused editorial. Your first paragraph expresses disappointment with the possible continuing gridlock in Washington and Harrisburg. Then your last paragraph suggests that the ticket splitting which occurred, yielding mixed results, is a good thing and gives hope for breaking the gridlock. Just how can ticket splitting be a good thing when it results in gridlock?
You seem to be clinging to what is taught in our government/civics classes in high school which avers that the true citizen of a democracy must evaluate each candidate and then vote for whom he or she feels is the best, regardless of party. In the real world, this approach is just so much baloney. Besides the problem of evaluating myriad candidates, at least for the average person, is the obvious fact that our political system revolves around our political parties -- essentially two in the United States. Therefore, one really needs to evaluate the parties, their platforms and what is the agenda that they are advancing and then select the one that most closely fits with your own particular "agenda" and then vote for that party's candidates. Additionally, this approach to voting would bring the parties more in line with citizens' agendas and, I believe, would help foster the growth of more political parties.
Yes, a straight party vote is the correct thing. Ticket splitting is a fool's errand.
HENRY W. JONES
First Published November 16, 2012 12:00 am