Do elections reflect the will of ‘the people’?

Going back in our young country’s history we all know only wealthy landowners who happened to be male were allowed to vote.  We recognize and have often discussed the pros and cons of the Electoral College.  Voter apathy has a tremendous impact on whether or not elections actually reflect the will of the majority.  Some voters cast their votes based only on social issues like abortion or gun control.  Money, or lack of, all too often dominates who runs and who is elected.  The candidate who may be nominated for POTUS doesn’t appeal widely enough to win at the national level, while the candidate who is moderate enough to be elected doesn’t ‘pass muster’ in the nomination process.

Earlier this month, California voters approved an open primary for statewide and congressional races starting in 2011. In the current system, each party has a closed primary, with only Democrats deciding who should be the Democratic nominee and only Republicans choosing their nominee. In the new system, all candidates for each office will be listed on a single ballot regardless of party (although candidates can list their party affiliation after their names, if they want to). The top two vote getters will advance to the general election, even if both are Democrats or both are Republicans.

Kansas Republicans hold a closed primary and we know this year the results could be skewed by disgruntled Democrats who desire a voice (even tho limited) in who will be the next Senator from Kansas.

What are the pros and cons you see in today’s elections?  What changes do you think might have a positive impact?  Will elections ever reflect the will of the majority of the people?

Obviously, I don’t have a clue.

Well, I obviously do not have a clue what is of interest to those here at our humble little blog. My column entitled “When is it time?” received about 90 comments and over 3,000 views. My column two days later, a human interest story about a pro golfer playing with his second transplanted heart, entitled “It’s Tee Time!” received zero posts and zero views.

Obviously, I don’t have a clue.

After Steven died, I committed to writing five columns per week in an effort to keep his blog alive. I have and will continue to keep that commitment, but obviously I need some direction.

The month of June is shaping up to be our best month ever, driven by nearly 5,300 views this past Monday and Tuesday, which were our best and second best days ever.  To put that in perspective, however, on Wednesday we had less than 700 views.

Obviously, golf is not a good topic for a column.

But here is my dilemma – I thought Wednesday’s column was far superior to Monday’s piece.

Obviously, I don’t have a clue.

I know statistics well enough to know that you can’t look at them with a microscope – you need to see the big picture.  That having been said, our humble little blog here needs participation and continued interest to survive.

As a writer, I can cover virtually any story. My columns are researched and my style of writing is similar to classic opinion columns. I try to vary my topics weekly and to include news, human interest and humor within a week’s span.

But, obviously, I don’t have a clue.

So, help me and this humble little blog out a bit. What topics do you want to see covered? Which columns do you like and which columns would you just as soon do without?  What would you like to see as the topics for future columns. Give me a hand.

Obviously, I don’t have a clue.

(The thread photograph  is not actually the author.)

William Stephenson Clark

Friday, 6/18/10, Public Square