Demographics Shouldn’t Exist

With the general election looming, it seems like the media is trying to pigeonhole various voters into “voter demographics” based on wealth, skin color, religion, sexual orientation, location, whether they own a dog or a cat, what their favorite pizza topping is, etc. etc, as we saw in the primaries. It’s pretty funny watching these political analysts on TV trying to predict what “demographic” will vote for each candidate, like the evangelicals will vote republican, the gays will vote Democratic, and so on.

Whatever happened to “one man, one vote”?

Reducing voters to groups based on one belief or tendency is a fallacy, and doesn’t portray voters as they really are; the declarations of a “gay” group, a “anti-war” group, a “black” group, a “blue-collar” group reduce voters to one-dimensional caricatures. I mean, I’m middle class, but does that mean my so-called “middle class motivation” really mean that I’ll support Obama just because the talking heads on the television say that 67.39% of middle class voters support him? They talk about how Obama had a tough time with “white, blue-collar” voters, but he wouldn’t have been able to get this far without them, as far as I’m concerned. What the analysts on our TV sets fail to realize is that we’re all, as individuals, part of many different groups. I’d be part of the anti-war, atheist, white, middle-class, and well-educated groups, if you had to break me down in that way. And guess what? All those point out to be media “democrat” signs, except for the white part. But they’d be wrong: I’d vote Nader, who hasn’t received any coverage because the MSM just covers the major two parties (but that’s a whole other blog post).

I get the media’s thinking: people with certain traits are more likely to vote one way or another based on the candidates’ stances. But the fact remains that we are all people with a variety of traits — and can’t be reduced to adjectives like “pro-choice” and “environmentalist”.

But, hey, maybe the media’s right. Maybe everyone just votes because of certain groups; if a guy who cares about the environment sees that 75% of “greenies” vote for Obama on CNN, he might be inclined to vote Obama without any critical thinking of his own. But maybe that’s the problem: people are too concerned with the collective, their group, and fail to think. And that’s tomorrow’s post.

add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

  1. Whatever happened to “one man, one vote”?

    I think that this is where the US goes wrong, Brett.

    If it was one man one vote it would be cool, but it isn’t. A Parliamentary system would work much better in the US – but that would mean becoming one nation rather than a republic, and I just can’t see that happening.

  2. For the record, I’m not against the Electoral College in any way. The problem is, people are being pegged as a group instead of individuals based on “political” traits. The vote tally should be a collection of individual’s votes, not the votes of a “voter” group. The voters of a particular candidate should all be seen as different individuals who voted for a common candidate, not one massive collective.

  3. Or woman, of course. {PC alert! PC alert!} 😉 I do not enjoy hearing polls or election results stating stats like “57 % of the black vote; 48% of the Hispanic vote; and 27% of the female vote.” What if I’m a female Hispanic gay Republican? Do I get counted as four different “things”? If I get to vote four times it might be worth “coming out” LOL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: