It's The Public's Right, Even If They're Wrong

There is an ongoing argument about how the American system works - - its strengths and its weaknesses. Many argue that our system of campaigning rarely gets the full message to the electorate, and that it merely becomes a popularity, hyping, and advertising contest. Many have stated that our campaigning period is too long, and therefore it often seems that candidates, when elected, are just constantly running for reelection.

Much is said and written about how much of the campaign is composed of empty rhetoric and unrealistic promises. How often have we ever seen campaign promises come to fruition for the benefit of the public?

While all of this is true, and it is certainly unfortunate that so many voters tend to vote based on emotion, hope, hype, or belief in some campaign promise, or even more often, vote against something, isn't that what democracy is all about? Isn't it every American's right to have the freedom to vote as they see fit, whether it conceptually makes sense or not? How many voters really are familiar with all the relevant issues, or even what specific candidates have done versus what they promise? How often does it appear that voters elect candidates that complain about the incumbents, and complain about some issue, but rarely come up with a realistic alternative?

The reality is that American politics is far more "spin" than action. Even incumbents that are embedded in the system, often campaign as the "outsider." However, as thoroughly exasperating, and even counter- productive that may be, isn't it every American's right to vote based on whatever their own criteria might be, or no criteria at all? Who are we to tell others how they must vote? So, isn't it the public's right, even if they are wrong?