Off the Editor’s Spike: Empathy isn’t a dirty word

Like so many others, I contemplated not voting at all. Both presidential candidates are so flawed.

That was still in mind when Tuesday finally arrived; then I remembered Friday (Nov. 11: Veterans Day) — all those gone before making this election possible — and felt convicted. So, I voted despite my misgivings.

We can survive poor choices, Lord willing, if we’re willing to learn from mistakes.  Our country has before.

We’re taught not to talk about politics (and religion) in polite society, as if we’re above such things. Then we wonder why we can’t communicate with each other without being offended. We’re not very good at empathy. I suspect our candidates simply reflect this reality.

For instance, last Saturday night the blackberry cobbler and ice cream after the show was a sweet treat. But the atmosphere turned sour as the lady sitting at a nearby table converted what had been a friendly acquaintance into a political rant. I bit my tongue so much I could hardly finish my treat. And, believe you me, I can’t defend either presidential candidate.

She was obnoxious. Obviously, she was there to tell and not to listen or share. Even her companion was rolling her eyes, nodding from side to side as if to apologize.

Feeling very strongly about a candidate or a position isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The question is whether or not you can reflect, reassess, and perhaps even concede you might be wrong. Life deals out so many opportunities to learn this simple truth.

In this county many elections ago, a gentleman that I knew personally aspired to county office. I thought him ill-equipped and hard-headed; I expected him to be blitzed at the polls and overwhelmed if, by chance, he were elected. I was dismayed when an unusual split ticket circumstance during the primary election made his path clear and easy into office.

I expected the worst, and I was wrong. He proved remarkably adept directing road and bridge repairs, which was the real measure. I think of him every time I’m tempted to endorse any candidate even in private conversation. It’s a reminder that despite however wrong I might be, there’s strength in majority rule.

Thankfully, such lapse in judgment usually can be kept private. Other times, being wrong becomes more obvious.

There was a time in this county that nothing was more divisive than the proposal to dam the Grand River. Strong voices for our agricultural heritage drowned out those advocating the flood control project proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal was commonly called the “Pattonsburg Dam.” If built, it would have created a rival to Smithville Lake.

Hindsight has most now labeling that decision to forego a dam on the Grand River as a mistake. Besides the obvious loss of economic development and diversification, we also lament the lost opportunity of a significant impoundment of water as a much needed resource for municipalities and water districts throughout the region.

Sometimes what seems right turns out wrong. The Pattonsburg dam is a reminder that despite opposing viewpoints, there are consequences to every decision regardless of right or wrong. Paying attention and participating in decisions matter.

This point was echoed concerning the introduction of huge hog farm operations in this county and elsewhere in North Missouri. The controversy which climaxed over 20 years ago was emotionally fueled by nostalgia about the family farm. But the risk in accepting huge farming operations was more precisely targeted when considering the impact on this region’s water aquifer.

That concern never ends, of course. But the naysayers who ardently preached the evil and irreversible contamination by hog waste leaching into nearby water tables were wrong — at least as predicted within the first decade of operations. Sometimes opinions you hold most passionately don’t turn out as predicted.

And so on.

I once thought voters would easily pass a statewide initiative to ban billboards along Missouri highways. Wrong. I once convinced myself to vote for a presidential nominee I knew was weak on foreign policy because of his choice for his running mate. This was wrong on two counts, for the president I thought I knew and for the vice president I didn’t know at all.

This brings me back to this election.

I am sure of one thing. Whoever wins this presidential election will be required to exhibit a skill that has not been displayed during the long campaign season — a capacity for empathy.

Leadership that embraces empathy will be necessary to put America back together again, to work on this mostly self-inflicted malady of our country divided.

I’m stopping now, in order to run uptown and vote at the library. I fear that neither candidate for president will exhibit the empathy of others for the healing that our country desperately needs right now. And this time, I really do hope I’m wrong.

———————————————————————————————————————

Want something better than the cards stacked for a 2-party system? Then pay attention to “Question 5” being decided in the State of Maine.

Question 5 defines ranked-choice voting as “the method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds in which last-place candidates are defeated and the candidate with the most votes in the final round is elected.”

As of August 2016, there were no states that used ranked-choice voting for standard statewide elections. Currently all states use the method of voting that allows voters to choose one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes in a single round of voting is elected.

This citizen-initiated legislation would establish a new method of voting and counting votes in Maine for elections determining the offices of U.S. Senator, Representative to Congress, Governor, State Senator and State Representative, and in primary elections to determine the nominees for those offices.

Rather than choosing one candidate for each of these offices, voters would be allowed to rank all the candidates listed for each office, including up to one write-in candidate, in order of the voter’s preference. Thus in a three-way race, instead of marking one vote on the ballot for candidate A, B or C, the voter could express preferences among all three candidates by ranking them as choice(s) #1, #2 or #3 on the same ballot.

In a multi-candidate race, if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the total votes in the first round, that candidate would be declared the winner. If no candidate received over 50% of the vote in round one, then there would be a second round of counting. The candidate in last place after the first round would be eliminated, and the second-choice votes of the voters who preferred the eliminated candidate would be distributed to their second-choice candidates.

In a three-way race, only two candidates would continue to round two, and the candidate with the most votes after round two would win. If there were four or more candidates in the race, the process might need to go to a third round of counting. A voter’s first choice would continue to be counted in each round unless that candidate had been eliminated, at which point the voter’s next ranked choice who had not been eliminated would be counted. This process would continue until only two candidates were left in the final round, or until one candidate received a majority.

There are more details to this, of course. If you’ve read this far, you realize tabulating the votes would be complicated. This proposal might work in Maine since ballots are counted at the municipal level — and there are only 500 municipalities in Maine (Missouri has over 900; Illinois has the most with 1,299).

It might be insane to apply this idea uniformly across the nation. On the other hand, there’s the insanity of doing elections like we’re doing and expecting different results from a belligerent (some say dysfunctional) 2-party system.

Whadduhuthunk?