“And ye, O peoples, to whom God gave the liberty to choose your own magistrates, see to it, that ye do not forfeit this favor, by electing to the positions of highest honor, rascals and enemies of God.” — John Calvin
So according to John Calvin, you forfeit your God-given freedom to vote if you elect anyone but Ron Paul. 
While Giuliani is slightly (and I do mean slightly) ahead of Paul in the New Hampshire primaries, Paul trounced him in Iowa.
McCain and Romney? I choose to attribute their high numbers to the odd “you’re a bigger hypocrite than I am!” rivalry they’ve got going on. It just begs people to choose sides.
And that’s all the American people want, really. Two contrived “sides” so they can pick one and have the other be the enemy. Anything else would require thinking, and that cramps our style.
Seth Godin has been writing about polls and surveys recently, and he’s got me thinking. I shot these questions to him in an e-mail, but I’m going to post them here for your pondering pleasure:
- Since all American citizens are not required to vote, are our elections really that much different from web polling (where the passionate have a disproportionate turnout)?
- Along those lines, would you say it’s good for elections to be decided by the more passionate (ie. the apathetic would make the results unreliable), or bad (ie., fewer voters means a decreased likelihood that the “right” candidate is elected to represent the people)?
- If you think this aspect of the electoral process is bad, then do you have ideas to improve the system?
- If, however, you think it’s good, then why are “gimmicky polls” not to be trusted?
I’ll share my own thoughts later, but I’d like to hear what you think, too.