‘It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes.’

By Martin W. Schwartz
Published: Monday, August 21, 2006 8:38 AM CDT
E-mail this story | Print this page

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.

Goin’ to the candidates’ debate.

Laugh about it, shout about it, when you’ve got to choose,

Every way you look at it you lose.

Paul Simon, from Mrs. Robinson

In the 1998 movie, Patch Adams, Robin Willliams, playing the title character, has himself committed to a mental institution where he is continually besieged by a fellow patient named Arthur Mendelson (portrayed by character actor Harold Gould) repeating the same question.

“How many fingers do you see?” Mendelson asks holding up four fingers.

“Four,” Adams answers.

“No, no! You’re focusing on the problem. If you focus on the problem, you can’t see the solution. Never focus on the problem. Look beyond the fingers! Now tell me how many you see.”

Adams focuses his eyesight beyond the hand in front of him. As he does so, his vision blurs and he sees eight fingers.

Eight turns out to be the answer Mendelson is looking for.

I’ve been reminded of that scene in the past few weeks as I listen to politicians lambaste voters for the poor turnout in the August 8th primaries.

Just this past Wednesday, Bob Stoltz stood before the people attending a Chamber of Commerce luncheon and angrily chastised them for not voting. Stoltz has reason to be upset. His son, Jeff, was defeated by Courtney George in the Republican primary to determine who would face Ken Clayton for Phelps County Prosecuting Attorney in November. George received 11,26 votes to Stoltz’s 1,099.

The Stoltz the Elder made it seem that it was not only one’s patriotic duty to vote, but a sin before God if one didn’t.

That made the hair on the back of my neck stand at attention.

It’s a popular PC stance to take — let’s scream at the voters for not turning out. It makes politicians and political parties feel better and it deflects attention away from the real issue.

Arthur Mendelson would say that it focuses squarely on the problem and not the solution.

Problem: Voter turnout is low.

Solution: Quit playing politics and give the voters something to vote for.

There was a pretty well-known advertising agency exec in Springfield who opened a restaurant in that city that served up his idea of great food. When it failed a few months later, this same exec — let’s call him Bob — made comments in the Springfield News-Leader about how Springfield diners lacked the sophistication to appreciate the classy bill of fare. The fact he never considered was that the menu was simply bad.

As we came into the August primaries, I was amazed at the amount of time and money that was spent to force feed us a bad menu. Candidates spewed out the same old tired rhetoric that politicians have been throwing at us for years. It’s almost as if the parties have started cloning candidates — walking automatons whose calculated vomitus is designed to impress the largest number of people without offending anyone. It’s all about volumes. Style over substance.

Is the voter turnout dismal because of apathy? Laziness? Or are the low figures actually a much more critical commentary on issues of confidence in the poor quality of candidates we’re being asked to support.

I know the PC argument. I’ve heard it ad nauseum. When you can’t find a candidate who appeals to you, vote for the lesser of two evils.

That doesn’t wash. The American voting public should not be expected to vote for evil of any kind. If you can’t find a candidate to support, you shouldn’t be asked to choose the one who sucks the least.

I’ve met some of the candidates on the primary election ballot and talked to others on the phone. Most were fine people in their own right, but their beliefs didn’t jibe with mine and I didn’t want them representing me. There are exceptions, of course.

I had the good fortune to meet U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson on my first day on the job. Since then, I’ve watched her handle several local events and, thanks to the Director of her Rolla District Office, Darren Lingle, got to watch her in action during House Appropriations hearings.

Emerson is tenacious, energetic and knows more about what is going on in the state than anyone I’ve met. Ask the people over at USGS. They’ll tell you. I can’t imagine anyone better suited for the job she holds. And I’m not even a Republican.

But for the most part, I can take or leave the candidates I’ve been force-fed by the political parties.

I agree that having the vote is a privilege. It’s like the government giving every man and woman of voting age a dollar and telling them to pick what they want from the political buffet. Unfortunately, when we go to the polls and check out the menu, we find we have a choice between cow excrement or chicken excrement. Sure there’s a slight difference where it comes from but, let’s face it, excrement is still excrement.

It’s not that I’m expecting to go to the polls and get prime rib for my dollar. But a cheeseburger would be nice.

The only race that is offering a distinct difference in the candidates is the one being waged between Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent for the U.S. Senate seat. And it is being contested using such infantile tactics that I can’t see voting for either candidate. I’ve met them both. I like them both. But come on, are these campaigns being run by spoiled eight-year-olds? Grow up or get lost. Just don’t count on my vote in November.

Maybe it’s just me. I’ve always been a bubble off level. Maybe I’m further removed from the mainstream than I used to believe.

I don’t want to hear a candidate tell me we need to stay the course in Iraq, even though, at this point, we probably do. What I would have rather heard before the whole mess started was, “I’m not going to send someone else’s sons and daughters to die so you can drive your SUV to Branson and jetski all weekend. Downsize or suck it up.”

I don’t want to hear any more politicians tell me how they want to preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage. I want to hear one say, “If you don’t like what your neighbor is doing in his own home on his own time, close your blinds, build a fence or move. I will not pass legislation to appease your personal moral outrage.”

Make no mistake, that doesn’t mean I want to see left-wing liberals take over. I’d also like to hear politicians promise us to “provide educational opportunities and low-cost loans to help enable the disabled and assure everyone has the ability to contribute to society, the community and his or her own household.”

And I’d also like to hear a simple, “Don’t make more babies than you can feed.”

Would politicians ever say such things in a public forum? Of course not. They wouldn’t get elected. And that’s the most serious flaw in the entire election process. Common sense has no place in government.

No one expects political candidates to be geniuses. Jimmy Carter proved that a brilliant mind will not always make a brilliant leader. George W. is proving we can’t expect much more from the functionally retarded. Maybe there’s a happy medium. Maybe not. But as voters, we won’t get it unless we demand it.

So looking past the problem — low voter turnout — we begin to discover that the solution is to actually give the voters a candidate worth voting for. How do we accomplish that?

Simple. Add a box on the voter’s ballot that says None of the Above (NotA). When election returns come back and NotA is the clear winner, all the candidates are thrown out and barred from running again. A special election with all new candidates will be held three months later. If we don’t like them, same deal.

As voters, we have a right to be represented by the greater, not the “lesser of.”

It’s time to get voters involved, enthused and anxious to get out and vote. If politicians and their parties continue to belittle voters for not turning out, they’re only seeing four fingers where they should be seeing eight fingers.

And they shouldn’t be surprised when voters continue to give them just the one in the middle.