ACORN and the perils of the uninformed vote

Kaffeetrinken with my in-laws always comes with the guarantee of a fun-filled discussion about politics, religion, the economy and/or ethics. (Well, perhaps not always fun-filled, but definitely interesting and passionate.) Today’s get-together did not disappoint.

My step-father-in-law, like most Germans, used to be crazy for everything American – the food, the buildings, the culture and, yes, the politics. Blinded by this love, he zealously shot down hubby’s doom-filled predictions for US economy and foreign policy after “Dubya’s” reelection. “Bush may not be the smartest, but the GOP would never allow for the decline of their country,” he said confidently.

He is now so turned off by recent American political events, that he followed this past election campaign without his usual level of interest. Among other things we had to explain all about “that ACORN business” – which solicited this question: Why would anyone court the vote from the uneducated, uninformed and uninterested?

ACORN’s aim to “get-out-the-vote” is fundamentally a noble one. Theoretically, the more people vote, the more democratic the outcome. The alleged “potential election fraud” by false vote registration cards was nothing more than a political manoeuvre. I would pay to see Mickey Mouse to show up at the polling station with valid identification in order to make use of that “fraudulent” registration. Hence, there is no way these false registrations will have any effect on the outcome.

With some of the recent, outlandish remarks by likely voters, my step-father-in-law raises an interesting aspect. Why is it beneficial to a democracy for people to cast a vote, and therewith influence the course of politics potentially substantially, based on utterly uninformed opinions and/or currently less central or irrelevant issues such as:

• Obama is a one-man terror cell.
• Obama is a Muslim.
• Obama is anti-American.
• Obama is a Marxist.

(I tried to find equally bizarre rumors about McCain, for balance. I was unsuccessful. I am not surprised.
UPDATE: LeftLeaningLady supplied me with a few; they are listed in the comments section.)

• Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
• The fact that Obama would be the first African-American President
• The fact that Palin would be the first elected female VP
• The fact that one candidate fought in a war and the other did not
• How many homes a candidate owns
• A non-American middle name

It disconcerts me that in the current economic climate some voters, such as Kevin Sheen, are solely centering their vote on abortion. I respect that to some people this is a very important issue, but I find it difficult to understand why this issue is so heavily weighted against the economy and foreign policy. Such debates find their roots in religious belief, and should stay there. For that very reason did the Founding Fathers of the US insist on the separation of church and state.

An uninformed vote adds no value to a democracy; in fact it subtracts, regardless of the political affiliation of said vote. But who would get to choose which vote is informed and which is not? The aim must be to educate, as comprehensively as possible, eligible voters of the political platforms out there. Desisting from perpetual attack ads one way or the other would be a first step. Instead, entering into an in-depth, respectful debate is far healthier and democratic than fear mongering.

The message should be: Get-out, get-informed, then vote.