This morning I voted in the city elections. I never much care about local stuff, even though it more directly affects me than national politics. Pam told me to vote for Henry for mayor, because Kelty intentionally lied on some kind of form (election form, IRS form--I don't know, but since Pam is an accountant, I'm sure it involved financial figures). So I voted for Henry, the Democrat. It was not totally mindless voting, because I did consult my wife about who I should vote for, and she does take interest in local politics.
There were a dozen people running for city council, and I needed to select three. I chose one Republican, one Democrat, and one Libertarian. A fair and balanced philosophy. I wanted to choose a woman Democrat, but the only one had a hyphenated name, and I find hyphenated names cumbersome.
So that was my voting experience today. As I said on Twitter, it was a case of "voting without conviction."
Career-wise, I've been hanging around and writing about and cheering on churches and pastors for the past 25 years as my denomination's Communications Director.
This begs the question, "Why bother?" Does not this type of voting make the results little more than a roll of the dice. Would it not be better for all concerned to allow those with some level of conviction to vote and disallow those like you who simply muddy the waters?
Good points. I guess I'm saving myself for the general election, on which I do have strong convictions.
I should point out that in my voting yesterday, I picked three winners and only one loser.
Sounds like you might want to try the track next.