By Oh Young-jin
Assistant managing editor
I picked four winners in the previous five presidential elections I voted in.
My 80-percent winning average is not bad by any measure and especially so, considering I cast a ballot for a candidate I knew couldn’t win in the one poll I failed to pick the ultimate winner.
About my voting record, one may feel tempted to call me a voter of opportunity who reads shifts in political currents and swims downstream.
I would partially admit I have been. At least on one account, however, I would defend my voting pattern.
I voted out of my conviction most of the time, choosing the candidate I thought best reflected the zeitgeist of a given period.
On closer examination, my picks were the inevitable result of compromises.
In one election, a national crisis compelled me to vote for a candidate that I was brought up not to trust. I regard it as my political coming-of-age. I disagreed on some points in his governance but by and large I had few regrets about voting for him.
In another election, I thought I voted right on the money but it didn’t pan out as I expected. It was an age of rebellion and I joined it through the ballot box. The rebellion ended as unfinished, inadvertently causing ideological divisions to deepen.
On two other occasions, I was a young and uneducated voter, blindly trusting mass media portrayals of candidates and selecting my choices purely on the basis of biased propaganda. I felt deeply disappointed about their governance, blaming myself for a lack of voter prudence.
On one other occasion, I voted with a sense of abandonment that may be found in an occasional Lotto gambler.
There were two common denominators that captured the gist of my patterns. First, I was an emotional voter who relied more on instinct than a cool-headed assessment, subjecting my decision to last-minute changes of heart.
As a matter of fact, I switched my allegiance, even while in a booth checking the box for my candidate. In the next moment, I felt tempted to uncheck the red circle mark with a Chinese character meaning a human inside and go back to my original favorite.
Second, the process by which I chose often proved to be one of opting for the lesser of evils rather than for the cream of the crop.
This is partially owed to greater access to personal information and public records, thanks in no small part to the Internet.
But, it is a double-edged sword, meaning that this free flow of information and open assessment of candidates not just sees voters more informed but also misinformed.
Ahead of two important elections this year ― the presidential poll in December and National Assembly elections in April ― I am drawing up what to do as a voter in terms of candidate vetting and criteria by which I choose my candidate and voters’ post-election duties. I am proclaiming it a “voter activism charter” for the purpose of not making the same mistake again.
The following is a draft that I hope will be completed before the April elections.
As a voter, first, I will not give up my right to vote.
This is a tribute to the upkeep of participatory democracy. Voters can complain about candidates’ lack of qualifications but this doesn’t justify any vote-skipping. Renouncing the right to vote is a bad habit that blights the flower of democracy so it is prudent not to start it in the first place.
Second, I will participate in at least two joint stumping tours for first-hand assessments (for parliamentary elections, the number can be reduced to one, considering a gap in comparable significance). The spirit of the saying, “seeing is believing,” may be put to best use in order to overcome flaws of representative democracy. There is bound to be black propaganda, the distortion of facts and other electioneering activities that further cloud voters’ judgment so they should look in person at candidates and listen to what they have to say.
Third, I will read at least three newspapers for candidate assessments ― one conservative, one progressive and one neutral. If past experiences serve as any indicator, the newspapers go an extra mile in supporting candidates along their partisan lines. One petty episode can sometimes be blown up to the point of affecting election results. As in a diet, balance is key in pre-election judgment.
Fourth, in assessing candidates, I will apply three criteria ― visions for the future; strength to carry on with them and willingness to communicate with critics as well as supporters. An ideal leader should have a fair amount of all three characteristics with a sense of constructive skepticism. If one has too much of one component characteristic over the others, it can spell disaster not just for the leader but also to the country or constituency. A leader with a negative disposition can be fatal in the age of a rapid change we live in.
Fifth, I will not complain about my elected candidate for complaint’s sake without offering an alternative. Voters turn their back on candidates once they are elected. Much of the blame for voter disillusionment falls on the elected officials’ failure to deliver on their promises. However, voters often feel their duty is finished once candidates are elected. One may feel a sense of catharsis by harping on about their leaders but harping for its own sake is of no help, when we think our leader’s success often identifies with that of our own.