The August 11 primary election is rapidly approaching, and those who vote via absentee ballot are already receiving them in the mail.
And as voting begins, the political debates have heated up.
The debates between supporters of candidates in the top races–governor, lt. governor, and 1st Congressional District–are reflecting the splits and strains within Hawaii’s dominant Democratic Party.
But they also make clear that voting is not a simple act of marking a ballot, and there are many different ways of approaching the decision of who to vote for.
So how do you decide who will get your votes?
Do you:
• Vote for the candidate who expresses political and social values closest to your own, whether or not they have any chance of winning?
• Vote for the candidate with desirable demographics, whether gender, ethnicity, neighborhood, etc? My late mother, for example, would be vote for women and candidates who were Hawaiian.
• Vote for candidates you have some personal link to, whether you know them personally, know their family, or have friends who know them?
• Vote for candidates who express support for policies that you favor?
• Vote for candidates who look good in their ads?
• Vote for candidates who are endorsed by groups you belong to or support?
• Vote for candidates based on their past records and actual accomplishments, not what they say they would do in the future?
• Vote for a viable candidate (one who appears to have a chance of winning) who most closely reflects your values and policy choices, even if not your top choice in the abstract?
• Vote for the candidate whose name is most familiar?
• Vote for the candidate who, overall, seems most like yourself?
• Vote for the candidate because of their “brand”, i.e. “progressive,” “liberal,” “conservative,” etc?
Which approach do you think is followed by most voters?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for listing all the “different” approaches followed by Hawaii voters. For myself, I am a combination of many rational and irrational approaches: If I have no idea about the candidate, I would chose the person with the Japanese name (this is the pure “ethnic” approach – like your Mother — as I believe the elected official would meet/talk with me if we were of the same ethnicity – irrational, but I think it is true – ideology has nothing to do with it – but again, it is not a 100% model, as Governor Burns was not Japanese). Then I have the “does he/she know me?” test – even if I am ideologically different, the fact the politician has met me and knows me is a big plus. Unfortunately, one Governor knows me by sight but never appointed me to a Board that people thought I was uniquely qualified for – so that is not a good model to follow. Idealogy – well, I “like” certain candidates and they seem to be very good people – but some have political views are so far Marxist-Trotskyite-Social Democrat (State Pays for Everything, I Get Taxed More and I Have No Say About It), I am alarmed that they would be challenged at passing Economics 101 at HCC (like many Hawaii voters — who actually vote, period — are more conservative than people think). Do I ever read “position” mailers/flyers that pop in my mailbox? Yes, I do – and anybody who starts talking about “returning” to Hawaii Kingdom laws and practices is a big negative for me – the Kingdom was very merit-based, far more than our current State, but I don’t see any modern state bringing back a monarchy of the mid-19 century to cure 21st century problems). As for sign-waving, I attended FHS when Charles Campbell was teaching there – and through anecdotal evidence, he launched sign-waving during the Hawaii campaign season. It seems that many voters count the “number” of sign-holders and calculate the election chances for the candidate on Vineyard. I am guilty of that – but sometimes I think highly of the “lone” sign-waving politician. Sometimes the “number” of a political leader’s campaign signs influence me that the candidate is “leading” suddenly – and then I wonder about why we have stringent no-billboard laws in the first place. In other countries the campaign season is “legally” only two weeks and all signs are restricted to “common” boards in each neighborhood, nothing more. Historically, the first “modern” politician-leader was probably Joseph Fern, the first elected Mayor of the City & County of Honolulu. He first recognized the value of the “multi-ethnic” voter, and at Aala Park campaign rallies he spoke in at least five languages. Mayor Johnny Wilson’s technocrat (he was a Stanford-trained civil engineer) administration oversaw the growth of Honolulu’s “town” infrastructure (streets, sewage, water, parks – like Ala Moana – and sadly, much has not been replaced since then!) – he was also fluent ‘olelo Hawai’i speaker as an Elder Statesman by the 1954 Elections – unbelievably, he influenced the Nisei political “Young Turks” with the memory of gun-running during the Counter-Revolt in 1895! And there is the use of a “cool medium”: television – the 1970 “Catch A Wave” 20-minute short revived Governor Burns campaign – and with Tom Gill’s defeat, create a “centrist” DP political momentum until Lingle’s surprise 2002 victory (after a devastating 10-year 1990s recession blamed on the Democratic Party). There have been along the way a series of unusual political leaders, including Frank Fasi (who retained a East Coast accent on TV and had a strong Hawaiian/Filipino following) and the dynamic James “Kimo” Kealoha, who split the vote that allowed for Burns to win in the State gubernatorial race. Enough . . .