I object to unsolicited, unwanted political calls. I know when election day is. I know when and where early voting is. I know how to apply for and execute an absentee ballot. And I know how to find the specific details I need when I'm ready to vote.
I'm tired of candidate mail, e-mail, and phone calls, especially the bot calls because "their people" have access to records that show I have not voted yet. I haven't given permission for my voting history to be accessible to political party honchos so they can feel free to pester me until I do vote. I'll vote, on my own schedule, thank you, when I'm damned good and ready. None of the political advertisements, good or bad, influence my choice in a positive way. And I have am predisposed to not trust candidate who mostly wants to talk about the other guy, instead of their own views.
That political party dupes doggedly manipulate us to vote, like herding sheep, only encourages me NOT to vote for the candidates who are the subject of their calls. That some of the calls are financed by out of state funders who want to manipulate elections, is beyond unconscionable. When the calls solicit my vote by gossiping about the other candidates and trying to create scandal (some of which is actual slander, some not), and because they all do it, my only choice, more than once, has been is to vote for whomever does the least mud-slinging. I doubt that is the best way to choose a candidate, but given that human decency is at the top of my list, at least it is the process available to me to weed out the worst candidates i.e. those who engage in the most mud-slinging. When time comes to do verbal battle, once elected, I want who we elect to be able to fight for our best interest, and to be able to have the passion when necessary to take off the gloves and throw a few solid punches as diplomatically as possible by state the facts without excessive pussyfooting around being mannerly in timid ways. We need to take a clue from the word politics and politicians (those we elected to representing us for a specified amount of time. It is from the same root as "polite" and we all know what that means. It does not mean phony manners, it means being authentic and mindful about being respectful and respectable all at the same time. Candidates need to start out being polite and stay that way while campaigning. Candidate debates are their opportunity to do a bit of verbal battle. More than what they say, if they fight clean, I am far more inclined to consider them trustworthy of representing we, the people, while serving, instead of using the power of position primarily for their own personal interests. The intent with which they can respectable differ with one another, and how they do it, matters to me. And I hope it matters to a whole lot of other voters as well.
I would prefer to vote based on the needed skills I think a candidate will bring to the office, and top of the list is how willing a candidate is to educate the constituency, and as importantly to be educated by the constituency when factual efforts (rather than mere opinion) are made by knowledgeable constituents to communicate about issues. Without human decency the other abilities of a candidate diminish in their relevancy, in my opinion, since each candidate has at least the minimum ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the office for which he or she is running (technically). When I pick up the phone to hang up, after the bot recording starts, and do not have the advantage of knowing to what extent the candidate wants to gossip about other candidates or not (some being factual, some slanderous), then my secondary method for weeding out who I vote for is to vote for the person who has not called or who has called the least number of times.
I have lived in states which actually enable and promote democratic process. I have yet to consider where I live as one of these state. Why is that? How about this, or more specifically the absence of this. Consider a state that creates a publication each election which simply states the facts. It presents each candidate, no matter the party - including third parties; it presents each issue, changes in the law; referendums and initiatives are included. A short version describing these is in the front of the publication. A long version of the actual laws and/or proposed changes, is in the back of the publication. A very short pro and con of a few sentences is also offered for each candidate and issue which has only to do with the facts. The publication is objective. There is no mud-slinging. The publication is delivered to every mailbox, voter or not, citizen or not. An effort is made to educate the voters. That is priceless. I am dubious about states that neither have referendums, nor initiatives, which is part of a functional democratic process, imho, which keeps constituents engaged like we should be. And as the value of ranked weighted voting becomes more clear, especially in states that do not obstruct people from voting when they do not register for a party, I increasing see that as supportive of democratic process, also.
Additionally, at the poles the flag is proximately placed and visible so that it is easy to find the voting location; this is not the case everywhere I have voted, nor when I have worked at the polls on election day. It is not simply the result of sloppy, haphazard placement.
All states would be well advised to use political contributions to produce and distribute a publication like I have described rather than subsidizing the advertising of party mud-slinging. Instead it seems where I live that government at all levels relishes underestimating both the intelligence, understanding of the issues in breadth and depth, and the valid concern of voters and everyone else who will be affected by outcome. Everyone is affected by the results of election day, citizen or not, monetary contributor or not. Everyone has the right to know about the candidates and the issues whether or not they qualify to vote, whether or not they contribute to campaigns.
Bottom line: everyone should have the right to have easy access to an objective printed publication detailing candidates and issues. When that happens in my state it will come much closer to actually enabling and promoting democratic process instead of government by the favored system of "ol' boy/ol' girl, its who you know" and/or how much money you can raise. Personally, I think money should monetary contributions should be removed from campaigns - that only the public funds available for election campaigning should be distributed equally to the candidates, and a cap put on the number of primary and general election candidates who run for any position.
