It's been far too long, and I'm going to make up for it by abusing this blog as the soapbox it, despite my best efforts, often manages not to be. For while you may not be aware that for me it's midterm season — which is how I'm currently justifying “it's been far too long” — you know all about election season. Many of you will even vote next week. I won't, and this time it's not because of midterms.

I'm open to changing my mind, if you can point out something I haven't thought of. So let me explain as briefly as I can, with the hope that you'll be likewise open to my line of thinking, and then I'd very much like to hear your comments right here at the end of this post. With thanks to Brooke, who was the first to ask, here goes:

None of the presidential candidates want government to do what I want it to do — in fact, rather the opposite — and if one of them were somehow in the ballpark, they wouldn't be able to make much progress toward the goals that I consider important. If I were forced to vote, I'd have to choose at random, which hardly constitutes good citizenship. Thank goodness it's still a free country (sort of) and nobody's being forced to vote (not yet, anyway). So if I want to change how the country works, which I do, I'm free to seek other means by which to change it. Turns out telling conscientious, educated people I've never registered to vote leads to pretty intense intellectual conversations, which add up to a tiny impact in the grand scheme of things, but still way bigger than a vote (especially a random one) could possibly be. Same goes for other political offices.

Really short version of what I want government to do: Why is it necessary that, in order for gay people to be allowed to get married, we have to pass or repeal laws? How could it possibly not have been legal all along? I'm not suggesting we should have been smart enough to get it right the first time. But the mistake was magnified because marriage is something government does. Imagine if it weren't.

That's not a complete argument by any stretch, but it's a good place to start discussing. Please, comment away! (If you're reading by email, first follow the link to the web version of this post.)

P.S. You might think I should vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. He's a kook. In fact, the Libertarian Party is full of kooks. Not that it matters: my argument has very little to do with attributes of particular parties or candidates.