The Importance Of Voting In The Primary Election

The Importance Of Voting In The Primary Election

The first Tuesday in August should be important to you!
4063
views

The right to vote is an important one to exercise. It is a way of having a say in governmental actions that will affect your life in many ways. The act of voting is your opportunity for choosing the person who most resembles your own belief system. Regardless of the outcome, your vote sends a message, letting politicians know what is important to you. It is one of the few times in life where it does not matter who you know or what you know; it is a simple matter of utilizing your one vote that every adult is granted.

A primary election is the preliminary step in the process of electing a candidate running for office in the United States. Many other countries follow different systems, but primaries are often held in the U.S. to see who will receive the nomination from his or her political party during the convention. The candidate who receives the nomination will run against the candidate nominated by the other party — or parties, as the case may be. Many voters don’t seem to realize that the primary is one of the most important phases of an election. This is when each vote counts the most, because it gives people the ability to decide who the best candidate is. Unfortunately, many people skip the primary election and only vote in the general election, many of them complaining that their party’s candidate is not the one they would have chosen. People who take their vote seriously need to find out when the primary is held in their state so they have a voice in selecting the candidate.

First, primary election campaigns are the main way voters get to know about all the candidates. After the national conventions, voters hear mainly about the platforms of exactly two candidates -- one Republican and one Democrat. During the primaries, however, voters get to hear from several Republican and Democratic candidates, plus the candidates of third parties. As media coverage focuses on the voters of each state during primary season, all the candidates are more likely to get some coverage. The primaries provide a nationwide stage for the free and open exchange of all ideas and opinions -- the foundation of the American form of participatory democracy.

Secondly, the primaries play a key role in shaping the final platforms of the major candidates in the November election. Let's say a weaker candidate drops out of the race during the final weeks of the primaries. If that candidate succeeded in winning a substantial number of votes during the primaries, there is a very good chance that some aspects of his or her platform will be adopted by the party's chosen presidential candidate.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the primary elections provide yet another avenue though which Americans can take part in the process of choosing our own leaders. The interest generated by the presidential primaries moves many first-time voters to register and go to the polls. While some states have dropped their presidential primary elections due to cost or other factors, the primaries continue to be a vital and important part of America's democratic process.

Every state is different in how it holds its primaries and determines voter eligibility, but these mini-races give major political parties a good read on who's their best shot at mobilizing voters and winning the general election. General election voters might award the winner, but primary voters are the ones who set up the match, and that's a decision that should be made by more than just 5 percent of the people.

So in the end, if you think that your opinion and your vote doesn't matter, think again! The people in office now are making decisions that will affect your life now and later! This is why it's important to get involved and be heard now. Let your vote be counted.

Cover Image Credit: smartcollegevisit.com

Popular Right Now

3 Reasons Why Step Dads Are Super Dads

36961
views

I often hear a lot of people complaining about their step-parents and wondering why they think that they have any authority over them. Although I know that everyone has different situations, I will be the first to admit that I am beyond blessed to have a step dad. Yep, I said it. My life wouldn't be the same that it is not without him in it. Let me tell you why I think step dads are the greatest things since sliced bread.

1. They will do anything for you, literally.

My stepdad has done any and every thing for me. From when I was little until now. He was and still is my go-to. If I was hungry, he would get me food. If something was broken, he would fix it. If I wanted something, he would normally always find a way to get it. He didn't spoil me (just sometimes), but he would make sure that I was always taken care of.

SEE ALSO: The Thank You That Step-Parents Deserve

2. Life lessons.

Yup, the tough one. My stepdad has taught me things that I would have never figured out on my own. He has stood beside me through every mistake. He has been there to pick me up when I am down. My stepdad is like the book of knowledge: crazy hormonal teenage edition. Boy problems? He would probably make me feel better. He just always seemed to know what to say. I think that the most important lesson that I have learned from my stepdad is: to never give up. My stepdad has been through three cycles of leukemia. He is now in remission, yay!! But, I never heard him complain. I never heard him worry and I never saw him feeling sorry for himself. Through you, I found strength.

3. He loved me as his own.

The big one, the one that may seem impossible to some step parents. My stepdad is not actually my stepdad, but rather my dad. I will never have enough words to explain how grateful I am for this man, which is why I am attempting to write this right now. It takes a special kind of human to love another as if they are their own. There had never been times where I didn't think that my dad wouldn't be there for me. It was like I always knew he would be. He introduces me as his daughter, and he is my dad. I wouldn't have it any other way. You were able to show me what family is.

So, dad... thanks. Thanks for being you. Thanks for being awesome. Thanks for being strong. Thanks for loving me. Thanks for loving my mom. Thanks for giving me a wonderful little sister. Thanks for being someone that I can count on. Thanks for being my dad.

I love you!

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Sociolinguistics Series: Part 50

Language is a powerful tool.

168
views

It's part 50--halfway to 100! I'm so glad to still be here writing! In this section, we will talk about Dr. Shikaki's findings on how Palestinians view the state of Israel.

25 years ago, 85% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution. 10 years ago, this number decreased to 70%. Dr. Shikaki believes this was due to an increase in the prominence of Islamism in Palestinian society during the second intifada; Islamists were opposed to the two-state solution. In the most recent survey, the December 2018 one, only 43% of Palestinians supported the two state solution.

In 2000, American President Bill Clinton met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat at the Camp David Summit to come up with a solution to the conflict. It ended without an agreement, but in December of 2000, Clinton once again proposed a resolution: the Clinton Parameters.

The content of the Parameters basically allowed Israel to annex settlements while Palestine to take 94-96% of the West Bank, as well as Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. There were other guidelines regarding territory, refugees, security, and the end of the conflict. Essentially, the West Bank would have been split up by Israeli roads and settlements--which is kind of the reality today.

Both the Israeli government and Arafat accepted the terms with reservations, and Arafat wrote to Clinton a letter asking for clarifications on the terms. Clinton and Dennis Ross, an envoy of the Parameters, publicized that Arafat had refused to accept the terms; they painted Palestinians in a negative light, saying that Israel wanted to accept the peace negotiations but Palestine did not.

American Lawyer Robert Malley was at the Camp David Summit and oversaw parts of the Clinton Parameters. In 2001, he said that three myths had come out of the failure of both negotiations, and that these three myths were dangerous to any future peace processes if people kept believing in them.

These myths are as follows: "Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat's intentions," "Israel's offer met most if not all of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations," and "The Palestinians made no concession of their own."

He said that these three statements were not true but very heavily publicized by America and Israel after the negotiations failed; rather, there is more nuance to each of these issues, and America and Israel have just as much responsibility in the failure of the Summit and Parameters as Palestine did. Malley wrote, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality."

Anyway, what does this have to do with Dr. Shikaki? He polled Palestinians not only on the their attitudes to the two-state solution, but the Clinton Parameters as well. 25 years ago, there was 60% support for the Clinton Parameters by Palestinians, but the June 2018 poll showed that the number had gone down to 37%.

The last ten years shows a significant decrease in public support for both the two-state solution and the Clinton Parameters, and it could be a result of disagreeing with specific parts of the proposals (such as how the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock or Jerusalem is delegated).

I did some further digging when I got home, and I found this data from the UN Division for Palestinian Rights website:

"A 25 December [2000] published poll found that 48% of the 501 Israelis questioned were opposed to the proposals; 57% would object to Palestinian control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound; 72% were against even a limited return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. A 29 December published poll found that 56% of the Israelis would oppose a peace agreement reached on the basis of the Parameters."

This shows that though public media--especially Western media--may have painted the Palestinian government as the villain (and Israel and America as the "victims"), the proposals accepted by either government had varied support among its people.

The Israeli civilian population did not want to accept the Clinton Parameters because of the way certain things would be resolved; their reservations lie with the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque because the Temple Mount, which is the holiest site in the world for Jews, would have been given to Palestine, while Jews would have control of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount (which is the status quo).

In addition, there was a section in the Clinton Parameters that dealt with the right of return for Palestinians, where there would be a certain number of Palestinian refugees who settled in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while other Palestinians either would become citizens of their host countries, move to a third-party country, or settle back into the land that is Israel Proper (with permission from the Israeli government, of course); many Israelis did not support this.

That was the public opinion years ago. Today, there is even less support for these proposals. Dr. Shikaki outlined three issues as reasons for a decrease in support of compromise, which we will cover in the next section. Stay tuned!

Related Content

Facebook Comments