DISCLAIMER - on Liza's political test I am a slight libertarian centrist economically, more definitely lower left quadrant on social issues. Like Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama.
***************************

Our 16-year-old college student woke up for her ride to campus and demanded to hear all how I wound up voting, and why. We've watched several candidate debates together, she's been collecting and critiquing all the direct mail pieces we get, etc. As a nonpartisan intellectual, I talk stuff to death from all different angles and don't issue definite answers, so she was curious to hear how it had come out in my mind.

I started describing my vote in each race and on each question and amendment, and I began to realize how varied the citizen decisions to be made on one ballot have become.

In going through each choice for her, I also realized I had voted for several Ds and not for any Rs this time, but it wasn't by design and that doesn't tell the whole story. And it wasn't all just yes-no or R-D. I couldn't have voted a "straight party ticket" even if I'd been willing to try.

There were several convoluted tax set-asides for special interests that sounded especially worthy like health care, old folks and veterans; the eminent domain issue, and local non-partisan races for judges and commissioners. (Florida already has a state minimum wage higher than the feds.)

I oppose most constitutional amendment initiatives as not rising to the threshhold of enduring principle, but for that very reason I did vote in favor of an amendment to require future amendments to garner 60% voter support rather than a mere 50% plus one vote split. (Imagine if every vote and candidate required 60% rather than a simple majority, maybe we'd have to work together or settle for nobody getting anything done! Think of that --Congress would look completely different, either an empty Capitol or else much more cooperative, responsive and productive!)

Then in the governor's race we had a third party candidate, who a judge controversially had ordered must be included (literally at the last hour) in the last televised debate hosted by Chris Matthews. Matthews handled it badly, too, he was flummoxed. All the usual inclusive forces like Dems and newspapers and PBS wanted him shut out and seemed resentful they couldn't define the participants any way they wanted, since they control the news. But they were forced to let him in and had to settle for treating him like a wayward child. I got annoyed -- no, I was INSULTED that the media fought in court to control my right not to know all my choices. Favorite Daughter watched that debate with me, and so she was amused to hear I finally wound up voting for him, reasoning he was closer to my practical policy positions than either the dodgy D who wants to tax me to death or the slick R who wants to keep my brain-dead body hooked to tubes against my will, after the D kills it.

The R - Charlie Crist - will win anyway, I told her, but I felt best voting against the media machine and both parties' machines, and FOR an outsider getting at least marginal access to coverage and the ballot. So I voted for Max Linn. (But if he gets even three percent of the total votes statewide, I will be stunned.)

Then there was one state supreme court judge I voted not to retain. I had studied the statutes and closely watched gavel-to-gavel coverage of the court's hearing on Bush v Gore in 2000, and was shocked by this one justice's very strained, legally tortured rationales. I didn't like partisan slant any better on her than on Katherine Harris and felt we were poorly served by both, from opposite directions. It won't matter because judges always are retained and Harris was dead all along, but today I got to apply my own reasoning to them both and express it without interference. That's a good day for the Thinking Voter imo.

I expect most of my votes to be on the losing side. Doesn't mean I will feel like a loser.