Skip to main content


“You’re Disillusioned. That’s fine. Vote Anyway.” is an editorial by The New York Times. This editorial argues, as the title suggests, that just because one is disappointed by and may not believe in a candidate fully does not mean they should not vote. It also suggests that not voting is irresponsible, and with that comes consequences. The writer’s argument is supported by statistics of the voter’s turnout for the 2016 presidential election and how that affects our nation now. It’s supported by focusing on “In 2016, nearly 40 percent of eligible voters chose not to vote. Many who showed up to vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 were apparently so underwhelmed by Hillary Clinton that they simply stayed home. And, of course, there were the voters who chose third-party candidates who had no chance of winning the presidential election but were still able to affect the outcome in key states.”

This editorial is for anyone who in the past has not voted or is thinking about not voting in upcoming elections. This author made strong points about all the reasons why voting is vital and a responsibility as a citizen to do so. She stated “we are desperate to change the political climate and the first step in doing that is shifting the balance of power in Congress.” I couldn’t agree more. The political climate our nation is facing is critical to the safety and well-being for each citizen and our nation as a whole. A party realignment election needs to occur. We need people in office that truly care about The People and are for The People. As stated earlier, many eligible voters did not vote in 2016 presidential election, and if they did it was for a candidate that did not even have a chance at winning. That is irresponsible, and now our nation is feeling the pressure of it. The writer made a strong statement, “We are reaping what has been sown from voter disillusionment and we will continue to do so until enough people recognize what is truly at stake when they don’t vote.” This is true, there is so much at stake such as the safety of citizens, healthcare, government assistance, birthrights, equality, humanity, and the list goes on.

I think it is great that this author had encouraging suggestions on how to get more people to vote. She suggested telling friends and informing them of political issue. She suggested driving friends to the polling sites. She suggests supporting candidates by volunteering with their campaign and or donating money. I truly am one of those people who inform friends, and posts on my social media to make people more aware so they can be more informed voters. I would like to think I am making some type of difference. So if you plan to not vote think about this statement by the author that I feel is the strongest point made, “You think your disillusionment is more important than the very real dangers marginalized people in this country live with.” Voting is vital, do your part to make a change.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Voting is Vital! Make Election Day a national holiday. Why do we vote on a Tuesday? It is known that Election Day falls on a Tuesday to accommodate the farmers’ population lifestyle back in the mid 1800’s. Farmers had to travel far by horse and buggy from their rural land to the nearest city to vote. The weekends were designated for working on the farm and attending church. Monday was designated for the long travel and to rest before voting on Tuesday. Today Tuesday is not a convenient day to go vote. Now our country is urbanized, and the norm for an American lifestyle has become more hectic and harder to balance. So for some eligible voters, neglecting their responsibility of voting is easier than neglecting their everyday responsibilities in their life. Would more eligible voters make their civic duty of voting more of a priority if Election Day were made into a holiday? In the 2016 Presidential election voter turnout was at an all-time low. Voter apathy played a hug
1 comment
Read more

Should Birth Control Be Free Preventative Care?

Should Birth Control Be Free Preventative Care? Whether or not birth control should be free and a part of preventative care has been a big debate.   Proponents of having birth control as preventative care state that not only does it prevent unplanned pregnancies, but even more it lowers health risks for women. Opponents of having birth control as a preventative care state that tax payers should not have to pay for another person’s healthcare. Does paying taxes really outweigh the health benefits a preventative care medication can provide?   In our nation it can and it does. It is a sad reality that it always comes down to money and not humanity.   The need for birth control coverage is necessary in the United States.   The National Health Statistics report that 62% of women in the United States with the reproductive age range of 15-44 use birth control as a form of preventative care to treat the many different conditions that can develop in a woman’s reproductive organs.   It is
3 comments
Read more
  The editorial by the Houston Chronicle Where’s that Texan pride in the voting booth? argues that Texas residents lack pride, and lack a true understanding of the importance in voting, as the title may suggest.   It also suggests that Texas residents don’t show up to vote.   The writer’s argument is supported by evidence of recent statics by the University of Florida that have made apparent of the decrease number of voters in Texas due to voter apathy and demographics, such as ethnicity and age.   The voter apathy argument focuses on “statisticians ranked the Lone Star State among the worst in the nation in voter turnout.   Only 28 percent of the Texas voters participated in the 2014 general election.   Compare that to Maine, which led the country with 58 percent of its voters going to the poll.” The demographics such as age and ethnicity argument focuses on “a third of the state’s Hispanic population can’t vote because they are under age 18, compared to 20 percent of whites. Jus
Post a Comment
Read more