Wulfie's Wurld

Commentary: Why Political Junkmail Works

I don't know about you, but I live in California. That means that almost any new proposition, whether added to the ballot by the State Legislature or by petition collectors who sit at little tables in front of super markets, results in ammending the State Constitution, which is now more of a confused Gordian knot than ole Gordo ever could imagine.

But it's okay. I got my state-supplied "Official Voter Information Guide," all 191 pages. The damned thing looks thicker than the US Code. It's pretty daunting. It's the document I use to make my decisions. I can see the proposed text, the impartial summary, the impact, and arguments for and against as supplied by those individuals either for or against it. It's, in my opinion, the best way to make a decision. Weigh the relative merits and bad points, think about them, run over them again, do a gut check, then decide yea or nay, and vote that way.

But 191 pages?

I was thumbing through the mail, and scattered in amongst the bills and the people wanting me to refinance, were the slick, full-color "flyers" of the various candidates, all of whom are honest, have great values, tons of exeperience, and are not evil like their opponents. I noticed on one of the flyers a recommendation on how to vote for the various propositions. Wow, if I was to take those recommendations, I would save hours studying the issues and sweating over trying to make the right decision. Ah, but do I trust them? Or was that flyer from one of the evil ones?

Such an easy trap to fall into. Let someone else make the decision for me. But if I were to do so, how would I decide whether the recommendations were good or evil (after all, we no longer live in a full color society--everything is either black or white now)? If I was a Democrat, I'd suppose that the Democrats were good and the Republicans were evil, and vote the way the Dem party hacks would want. If I were a Republican, I'd suppose the opposite, and end up voting the way the Pubbie party hacks wanted.

I guess I'd better study the issues.

What about the candidates themselves. Should I examine the voting records (and probably the police records) of the various incumbants, and check out the positions of the challengers? That would be the right thing to do. That would also be an incredibly time consuming thing to do, and let's face it, my time is valuable. Really. Or do I remember that I'm a Dem or Pubbie and just vote the party, and give up my voice. I might feel guilty if I do that. I'd better read all the political flyers of my current party and get all the warm fuzzies that I'm making a good choice by voting their way, and decide that the others are evil.

Alas, as a moderate and affiliated with no party, I have to make an informed decision on my own. So I throw the political junk mail away, unread. I study the issues and candidates objectively. That means I have to understand them. That means I'm going to be spending many hours of my valuable time doing this. It could be as much as six to eight hours. Perhaps more. But you know, six to ten hours, once every year or two around election time, is not a bad price to pay for Democracy. In fact, it's a bargain.

I wish everybody felt the same.