Voting for an Update
Every election, there is at least one candidate running as the ‘reform’ candidate. This is the individual who wishes to be the antithesis to of the status quo. Most of the time these attempts are one part admirable, one part arguable. When choosing between X number of people, none of whom you trust, does it matter which one poisons your kool-aid?
Now, I may have (partially) disproved the point of this point just now. Let’s call that intellectual responsibility and due diligence. But I think it is an interesting concept worth debating. What if everybody that was so pissed off about everything that happens everywhere staged civic revolution? Sounds like something the ‘activists’ may want to consider. It could be attractive and effective since it is not partisan at all. It is a vote for an update.
How you choose which non-incumbent to vote for would be up to you. The only commitment would be to vote against the incumbent. Everybody could win, in theory, because any way you slice it, “a change gon’ come.” (Thank you Sam Cook)
Not sayin’ I’m all in for this strategy, but I think it may be worth discussing. I think I know of a group at Michigan that could determine if the idea has legitimacy or not. Big ups HEADS.
Garlin Gilchrist II
Sent via Wireless Handheld