Importance of the 2006 Election<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
by Kerby <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Anderson
 
 
            In the last six years, elections in America have been close, and they have been important. Sometimes when we hear a politician or a talk show host say that the upcoming elections are one of the most important in U.S. history our eyes sometimes glaze over. But it is true. They are important, in part because the elections are so close.
 
            Let's review our history. The 2000 presidential election was the closest in American history. George W. Bush was elected president by 537 votes in Florida. You really can't get any closer than that! Or look at it this way. If you were able to change 5381 votes in four states, the presidential election would have resulted in a 269-269 tie.
 
            The congressional elections were also close. After the votes were counted in 2000, the U.S. Senate ended up in a 50-50 tie. You can't get any closer than that! And it was even close in the U.S. House of Representatives. Most people don't realize that a collective shift of 5493 votes in five districts would have put Democrats in charge. Representative Dick Gephardt would have been Speaker of the House.
 
Let's now fast forward to the 2004 elections. The presidential election in 2004 was decided in Ohio with twenty electoral votes. Republicans picked up four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House. This gave the majority party some breathing room, but not enough to pass lots of legislation nor defeat a filibuster. Often important legislation was stopped before it could even get an up-or-down vote in Congress.
 
Are we headed for some close elections next time? If current trends continue, then we certainly seem to be heading that way. Consider the story of my friend Penny Pullen in Illinois. A number of years ago, it appeared she lost a primary election by 31 votes. However, there were many irregularities in the ballots (after all, her state representative district was near Chicago). Judge Francis Barth concluded that the election was a draw and ordered a coin toss. She lost the election on a coin toss. Later she found out that many members of her church hadn't bothered to vote in the primary election and could have made a crucial difference.
 
This year, we had another case of an electoral tie. William Crawford and Jean Miller both received an identical number of votes in an election in Ohio. William Crawford was especially upset when he found out that his two sons failed to vote that day. His son Jim lives across the street from him. His other son Andy is a college student who lives at home with him. Neither took the time to go to the polls.
 
Would the outcome of these elections be different if a few people in Penny Pullen's church had bothered to vote or if either of William Crawford's sons had bothered to vote? I think we all know the answer.
 
We are living at a time when the elections are closer than ever. No one has the right to ask the question anymore about whether one vote is important. We have too many examples that show how important a handful of votes can be on the outcome of an election.
 
So what is at stake? This is something else that is remarkable about the 2006 elections. Many of the issues at stake weren't even on the political radar screens six years ago.
 
For example, a key factor in the 2006 elections will be the war on terror. Already we have seen the impact of that issue on the U.S. Senate race in Connecticut. Ned Lamont was able to defeat incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman in the democratic primary race. Terrorism wasn't even a campaign issue in 2000. It will be a major issue in 2006.
 
Another example is the definition of marriage. During the 2000 elections, there was hardly a discussion of the marriage issue. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. But all of that changed in 2004 when Massachusetts began to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. One of the most important ballot initiatives in recent elections have been marriage protection amendments.
 
Back in 2000, few people had even heard about stem cell research, and it certainly was not a campaign issue. It was a major issue in the 2004 California election and promises to be a major issue in many states in this election. Also, voters want to know how candidates stand on this issue and many others issues related to bioethics.
 
Obviously, there are many other issues that are of importance and will be affected by your vote this year. Even the secular media is talking about the potential impact of the "values voters" in this election. The big question is whether they will show up.
 
Many Christian voters are disappointed by the stands of many of our elected representatives, and many more are so discouraged that they may not vote. That is understandable, but not a good enough reason to stay away from the polling booth. If anything, Christian voters have an important opportunity to make a difference. In these close elections, a few votes can spell the difference between winning or losing an election.
 
There is some debate about how many Christian voters there are in America. So let's look at a smaller segment: the evangelical voter. According to George Barna there are approximately 20 million evangelical adults. He has also found (through surveys) that approximately 89% are registered to vote. That's a very high percentage compared to the general population.
 
So the issue is really this simple. If evangelicals Christians show up on election day, they will determine the outcome of most of the close elections around the country. If they do not, they will turn the decision-making over to others in society.
 
That is why it is important for you to understand the issues and know where candidates stand on those issues. Then go out and vote intelligently for those candidates.