The undecided voter dilemma

With the presidential election upon us, many have already chosen a candidate to vote for. However, a number are still on the fence.

But is this wavering a sign of procrastination or wisdom? There are those of us on the Waltonian staff who have supported the same candidate with an unshakeable faith, prepared to spout off the multitude of positive facts that surround our choice and the negative that surround their opponent.

Is this a sign of well-researched opinions or the blind following of a demagogue?

If you support John McCain, can you tell your friends why he is a “Maverick”? Were you ever interested in drilling offshore before or did you just chant “drill baby drill” during the Republican National Convention?

If you follow Obama, what precisely is the change you are after? What do you know about universal health care other than some European countries use it?

As exciting as elections are, it is more important to have a firm understanding of the issues before we get wrapped up in one party or the other. Too often we vote for someone with whom we’d like to go bowling, or moose hunting for that matter, and not someone who can lead.

But for those of us still undecided, what are we waiting for?

The issues and the candidates’ stances have been hammered so mercilessly into the voters’ subconscious that our dreams have been filled with solar panels and tax cuts.

The last debate was nothing more than the repetition of the same old talking points.

Whether you’ve been wearing the pin of your candidate for the past few months or are just beginning to look at their Web sites, the Pennsylvania voter’s registration deadline is nearly upon us. If you aren’t signed up by Oct. 6, it won’t matter where you stand.

So take a moment to look at the candidates one more time. Study their records. Review their future policies with scrupulous intensity.

Otherwise, be prepared to forfeit any complaints you may have about how they run the country.

Inquiring Minds is the opinion of the writer with collective thoughts of the editorial staff included, although not altogether representative of the editorial staff’s views.