Against The Odds
A rather condescending editorial about polling in the LA Times by philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell. While I favor anything that demystifies the process, Sartwell's main point seems to be that when pundits say one group--Latinos, soccer moms, evangelicals, whatever--is decisive in an election, actually, if it's close enough, a lot of groups are decisive.
Did anyone not get this already? It hardly means pointing out strong or weak support among certain groups is meaningless. (He's apparently unhappy so many are noting working-class whites seem to have a problem with Obama. Are we not supposed to mention this?)
posted by LAGuy @ 12:12 AM
2 Comments:
So what happens now? Conservative groups get gay marriage back on the November ballot (thereby getting more conservatives into voting booths, way to play right into the Right's hands), the people of California assert their democratic right to vote their position against gay marriage (as they did previously), liberal groups pull together plaintiffs to take the biased public support for a discriminatory ban to the state courts, judges overturn the ban, conservative groups put gay marriage on a ballot...
When does the will of the people finally stand? I don't agree with it in the slightest, anyone who wants to get married should be able to (and the ignorance and hatred of some ban supporters truly terrifies me). It's this back and forth between the democratic process and the judicial system that I fail to understand.
Thanks for your comments, but I think they were meant for the post above.
Post a Comment
<< Home