Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was helping my son with his homework the other night and part of it was discussing the current election. My son's class was going to hold an "election" to see which candidate the class supported. Each class in the school then would choose an "elector" that would represent that class and then those votes would determine who the school would choose. Part of the homework was coming up with a reason why you supported the candidate you chose. It was not to be something lofty, just the reason why you made your choice. Ostensibly these reasons were going to become part of a hallway display.
My son was really struggling with this. He first said he wanted to vote for Obama because he was the president and should get to finish his job. I reminded him that lots of people have been president and someone was president before Obama, so just being the president doesn't mean that you get to keep the job and many people didn't get two turns at being president. Then he said that he would vote for Romney. I asked why and his answer was, because Obama already got to be president and someone else should get a chance.
I could have ended it there, the reason was as good as any, for either candidate, that a 7 or 8 year old would offer that wasn't prompted/supplied by their parents. However, in typical NJGOAT fashion I felt the need to push it and formulate some more understanding and make him think critically. So I tried to encapsulate the basic premise at a level he could understand...
NJ: When you buy your lunch at school what comes with it?
DS: A sandwich, milk and some fruit.
NJ: What else? Do you get vegetables?
DS: Yes, but I don't like those.
NJ: Even though you don't like them, they give them to you anyway, right?
DS: Yes, we don't have a choice, they make us take them.
NJ: Well, we all know vegetables are good for us and we should eat them, right?
DS: Yes.
NJ: OK, that's the difference. Obama thinks vegetables are so good for you that he believes that the government should be able to make you eat them even if you don't want to. Romney knows vegetables are good for you, but he thinks you should be able to choose whether or not you want to eat them.
DS: I'm voting for Romney.
NJ: Why?
DS: I don't think the president should be able to make people eat vegetables if they don't want to.
Now, while it certainly seems like I was trying to lead him to a decision, I really wasn't. This was an on-the-fly conversation and I was trying to get him to think more critically without making it about lofty and complex problems that would have gone over his head. In very simplistic terms though, that seems to capture it rather well, lol.
For the record, I'm a very moderate Republican and my wife is a slightly less moderate Democrat. I'm still undecided and she is voting for Obama.
So, what are your kids doing at school in the leadup to the election? Are you talking about it at home? In the case of younger kids how are you presenting the issues or the differences between the candidates? Do you simply tell your kids who you are voting for and only give them information that supports that choice, or do you allow them "equal exposure" and help them make their own choice?
Our family is very politically aware, so we have been discussing politics with the kids for many years. The hardest part is giving impartial information in the quest to help them develop their own opinions.
Our kid's school is decidedly partisan in its imparting of political knowledge, so it's important for us to do a bit of damage control, but also try to find impartial information for them.
My 12 year-old watches the debates with us, it's quite enlightening hearing his take. Your son is a bit young though.
Obama believes that everyone should have access to healthy vegetables. Romney believes that 47% of Americans are too lazy to get vegetables. If you worked and go rich (that makes me laugh every time), THEN you get vegetables.
Are you talking about it at home? In the case of younger kids how are you presenting the issues or the differences between the candidates? Do you simply tell your kids who you are voting for and only give them information that supports that choice, or do you allow them "equal exposure" and help them make their own choice?
I tell my kids that it is a waste of time to research to vote and it is a waste of time to vote. It is more beneficial to be aware of the election outcome so you are prepared to deal with the results (for example, new taxes, laws, financial issues, economics, employment considerations, land zoning, etc). In other words, don't waste your time participating because the return on investment is practically zero. Better to react to the election results. Plan and react.
Obama believes that everyone should have access to healthy vegetables. Romney believes that 47% of Americans are too lazy to get vegetables. If you worked and go rich (that makes me laugh every time), THEN you get vegetables.
Translation of the translation...
Obama thinks Americans are too stupid to eat vegetables that are good for them, so the government has a "duty" to force them to do it. Romney thinks Americans are too stupid to eat vegetables that are good for them, but he doesn't care.
lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles
I tell my kids that it is a waste of time to research to vote and it is a waste of time to vote. It is more beneficial to be aware of the election outcome so you are prepared to deal with the results (for example, new taxes, laws, financial issues, economics, employment considerations, land zoning, etc). In other words, don't waste your time participating because the return on investment is practically zero. Better to react to the election results. Plan and react.
Sorry, that's just not a view I can share. I agree that one should know both sides for the "plan and react" piece, but to not have an interest in exercising your vote to choose which "plan" is best for you is just the pinnacle of apathy. I'm sure you will rattle off reasons that the vote doesn't count do to the Electoral College, etc. but that doesn't hold true for all elections. Voter apathy is the leading reason that politicians both local, state and national are able to generally ignore the interests of the people. If anything since we seem to belong to the most apathetic generation of voters, it is imperative that we impart to our children the importance of exercising their rights.
My daughter told me the other day that she didn't think it was important to vote. I told her that her beloved great-grandmother was born into a United States in which women were not allowed to vote. She decided in typical teenage fashion -- if you tell me I can't, then that's exactly what I'll strive to do -- that maybe she should vote.
Back on topic, like somebody new, I think you led the conversation.
"Now, while it certainly seems like I was trying to lead him to a decision, I really wasn't."
Is just inaccurate. NO ONE can really discuss politics without leading the witness unless they do nothing but ASK their kids.
My kids are still a bit young for complex political discussions, but I am thinking the best we will be able to do is note our own biases when presenting information and try to present "the other side" as objectively as possible while noting our biases, and teaching the kids how to identify their own biases, as well.
NJGOAT, I think it is great that your kids are being exposed to political thinking and decision making. I share your view that voting is very important, even when it is maddening, even when the choices may not be what we want, and even in a specific election where our particular vote may not swing the state or county.
I'm sure you will rattle off reasons that the vote doesn't count do to the Electoral College, etc. but that doesn't hold true for all elections.
True. If there was a decent chance my vote would count, like for an HOA and ten people were voting, then I would vote. But for elections in which more than thousands of people are voting, it isn't worth my time.
Voter apathy is the leading reason that politicians both local, state and national are able to generally ignore the interests of the people. My one vote won't change this.
If anything since we seem to belong to the most apathetic generation of voters, it is imperative that we impart to our children the importance of exercising their rights.
Our children pretty much already know they have to right to vote. They also have the right to not vote.
Imperative? It's imperative that we impart to our children to question everything and make wise economic decisions. Despite what we've been "trained" to think, voting has a practically irrelevant impact to a person's life.
My kids are still a bit young for complex political discussions,
Amazing how this logic doesn't apply on Sunday mornings when it is time to go to church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
