Mediaboss Marketing

Sep 26th 2020

Letters are welcome via e-mail to letters@economist.com

Alas, how different you are in evaluating the legacy of Abe Shinzo from the people of Japan (How Abe Shinzo changed Japan, September 5th). You praised Mr Abe as a great neoliberal reformer during his time as prime minister, who opened Japans market, enhanced productivity and concluded free-trade agreements. Consequently, however, Japan has many more unstable part-time jobs, with lots of women forced to work.

True, some people and companies praise him because they benefited from the increases in productivity and the stockmarket. But the vast majority of Japanese people see things differently, because their standard of living has either not changed or deteriorated. Dont you see the same soil that invited Brexit?

Worse, you applauded Mr Abe for making Japan more governable. Indeed. He shifted political power to the prime ministers office, making decision-making faster. As a result, today a handful of officials decide policies without discussions among bureaucrats, let alone with the voters.

Inequality in society and such a policymaking process were exactly what Japan had before starting the Pacific war. We need to remember that.

FUMIKO SASAKIAdjunct assistant professor of international affairsColumbia UniversityNew York

Bellos column on Venezuelas divided opposition was uncharacteristically unbalanced (September 12th). Henrique Capriles was described as a moderate, but Juan Guaid was presented as a radical, linked implicitly to the push from radicals for military intervention by the United States to end Venezuelas crisis.

Bello is right that the continuation of the outgoing assembly, and therefore the interim government, has no constitutional basis. Yet neither does a dictatorship. Mr Capriless strategy of participating in the legislative election, which breaks with the bulk of the opposition (moderates and radicals alike), not only contradicts the notion that you cant hold a free election when a despot controls the electoral authority and the courts, it also threatens to erode the international backing for Mr Guaids interim government. After many stolen elections (including Mr Capriless presidential bid in 2013) and the neutering of the opposition-controlled legislature, Mr Capriles has yet to explain how he intends to counter election fraud or make the opposition effective. The only workable option continues to be to increase internal and international pressure, in the form of sanctions, to force a democratic transition.

HUMBERTO ROMEROPompano Beach, Florida

Your article on covid-19 spurring the digitisation of government asserted that a single digital identity for each person should underpin public services, such as track and trace (Paper travails, September 5th). This is not needed. The British government, for instance, has digitised dozens of its services without introducing national identity cards.

The parts of government that provided a competent online response to the pandemic (universal credit, taxes, the health systems sick-note service) invested in strong internal teams supported by contractors. Over the past six months 3,184 public services have used the governments Notify platform to send nearly 1bn letters, texts and emails accurately to 80% of the population. This contrasts with buying magical-thinking from consultancies and outsourcing the states responsibilities, as it has for track and trace.

It is true that different government records are isolated in different departments. Data are isolated because of departmental sovereignty: 1,882 central-government websites existed in Britain before they were consolidated in the GOV.UK site.

The challenge is not one of ID cards. It is one of government. Centralised national identity schemes can be dangerous points of weakness for fraud and hacking, as shown recently in South Korea and Estonia. More urgent is the reform of the Victorian structure of government and its antiquated working practices. Calls for identity schemes often arise to avoid doing this hard work of resetting government for the digital age.

MIKE BRACKENPartnerPublic DigitalLondon

A house divided (September 5th) implied that laws barring foreigners from voting in America are based on the constitution. That document grants states the power to set the manner of elections to Congress and allows states to appoint members to the Electoral College in any way they choose. Beyond that, it is silent on the process of running elections.

This is not just an academic exercise. Several states have at one point or another granted suffrage to foreigners. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does ban non-citizens from voting, but that is an act of Congress, not a feature of the constitution.

BLAKE HAYESPeachtree City, Georgia

Your list of the potential for trouble on Americas election night omitted remarks made by Hillary Clinton on August 25th: Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we dont give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.

PAUL MITCHELLWeilerbach, Germany

In 2016 rioting broke out in Oakland following the election of Donald Trump. I dont recall any such unlawful behaviour from Republicans after losing a national vote.

PAUL SHANNONDoncaster, South Yorkshire

Lets be clear: Joe Biden is the conservative candidate in this election. He values established institutions and alliances. He recognises the need for change, but calls for a moderated, considered approach rather than radical upheaval. He has a strong sense of personal morality and ethics, and holds to a tradition of dignity and respect in political discourse. He values the rule of law. The incumbent, and the Republican Party in general, value none of these things.

ED KENSCHAFTAnnandale, Virginia

The dogmatic debate in Islam over canines (Bone of contention, August 29th) even extends to Imran Khans love for pooches, especially handsome ones. Mr Khan has owned at least five dogs, earning them an entry in Wikipedia. The Pakistani prime minister has been criticised for his puppy love, such as when a prominent member of the Muslim League objected to one dog, Sheru, being allowed into the house, as this went against cultural and religious values. The matter came to a head when a newspaper accused Motu, another of Mr Khans pets, of causing a spat with his wife by interrupting her religious activities. Luckily, Motu was cleared of any wrongdoing, and was seen months later at a meeting between Mr Khan and Irans ambassador, indoors, of course.

NOLAN QUINNParkton, Maryland

This article appeared in the Letters section of the print edition under the headline "On Abe Shinzo, Venezuela, national ID cards, America, Imran Khans pets"

See original here:
Letters to the editor - The Economist

In 2005, while bragging about his history of sexual assault, a reality TV host laid out a simple theory of power. When youre a star, Donald Trump explained to Access Hollywood host Billy Bush, they let you do it.

Fifteen years later, Trump has gone from The Apprentice to the Oval Office, from grabbing women without their consent to picking a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the supreme court. Yet his approach to power has remained quite consistent.

When you have the Senate, when you have the votes, you can sort of do what you want, he told Fox & Friends.

This is what political scientists call constitutional hardball and what the rest of us call doing whatever you can get away with. It is not a philosophy unique to Trump. In fact, its one reason why he and Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, a man as dully calculating as Trump is garishly impulsive, have become such inseparable late-in-life partners. The majority leader has spent decades in Washington treating public service as a sport, going so far as to title his memoir The Long Game. In McConnells view, the purpose of politics is to accumulate as much power as possible by whatever means available. In Trump, hes found a kindred spirit.

If hardball must be played, there are plenty of reasons to think that Democrats will ultimately come out on top

Now, both men have the chance of a lifetime: the opportunity to confirm a far-right justice to replace a liberal icon just weeks before election day. Its hardly surprising that even cursory talk of principle or restraint has gone out the window. Politically speaking, Trump and McConnell are stars. We will, they assume, let them do it.

In the short term, they may be right. Unless four Republicans defect, they can install a deeply conservative justice in the waning days of the presidents first term. But in the long run, the great loser of McConnellism might turn out to be McConnell himself. No one should be rooting for constitutional hardball. But if hardball must be played, there are plenty of reasons to think that Democrats will ultimately come out on top. In fact, enraged Democrats dont even have to embrace Donald Trumps whatever-you-can-get-away with mentality to undo Mitch McConnells lifes work. All they have to do is exercise slightly less restraint.

For one thing, Americas political institutions are currently biased in many cases quite aggressively in favor of conservatives. Restrictive voting laws make casting a ballot disproportionately difficult for lower-income, non-white and young Americans. Unprecedented gerrymandering gives Republicans a built-in advantage in the race for the House, and according to FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver, the Senates bias toward rural states makes the chamber about seven points redder than the nation as a whole. Thanks to the electoral college, two of the past five presidential elections have been won by Republicans who lost the popular vote one reason why even before Justice Ginsburgs death, 15 of the past 19 supreme court justices were appointed by GOP presidents.

The conservative movement, in other words, already had it pretty good. The average American disagrees with Republican orthodoxy on every major issue: healthcare, climate change, gun violence, immigration, taxes, Covid response. Yet thanks to the biases embedded in the American political process, Republicans have not just remained viable, but secured extraordinary amounts of power. We cant know for certain who would benefit from upending the status quo that existed at the time of Justice Ginsburgs death but we do know which party has the most to lose.

Whats more, the GOP has not just benefited from the bias of the American political process theyve benefited from the fact that many Americans dont realize such a bias exists. Despite some politicians increasing eagerness to erode our democracy, large majorities of Americans still believe in representative government. Among other things, they want to see higher turnout in elections; they want wealthy interests to have less influence in our politics; they oppose the electoral college; dont want President Trump to rush through a judicial pick so close to an election; and were horrified when attorney general William Barr teargassed peaceful protesters earlier this year.

Its possible that as fights over our political process become more high-stakes and more public, Americans will become less supportive of democracy. But it seems more likely that theyll grow increasingly resentful of the party which views representative government as a threat.

McConnell and Trump may also not realize the extent to which theyve benefited from a double standard in American politics. For decades, Republicans have broken norms whenever they believed they could. Democrats have broken norms whenever they believe they had no choice.

The constitution gives Democrats plenty of ways to restore our democracy without resorting to McConnellism or Trumpism

This is not (or at least, not merely) because Democrats are more noble or virtuous than Republicans. In the 1970s, when the modern conservative movement began, an emerging liberal consensus left the right wing feeling it had little to lose by upending our system of government. Democrats, meanwhile, became the party of active government and were naturally more wary of the possibility that, in an effort to reform institutions, we might erode their legitimacy instead. More recently, the Senates rural skew has meant that red-state, moderate Democrats have more clout than than blue-state Republicans. At the same time the Democratic coalition of young and non-white voters was growing, giving them hope that doing nothing would still give them the advantage over the long term.

If Trump and McConnell rush through the confirmation of an extremist, partisan judge, cementing a 6-3 majority, the calculation for Democrats will change completely. Even moderate members of the party are likely to conclude that they simply dont have much to lose by acting more aggressively.

Unless they never again win the House, Senate and White House simultaneously, the constitution gives Democrats plenty of ways to restore our democracy even without resorting to McConnellism or Trumpism. They can expand the electorate by restoring the Voting Rights Act, making voter registration universal, and passing comprehensive immigration reform. They can blunt (if not entirely offset) the GOPs Senate advantage by granting statehood, and two senators apiece, to Puerto Rico and Washington DC. They can undo the effects of McConnells court-packing by expanding the bench not just the supreme court, but lower courts as well.

Whats notable about all of these positions is that they stop far short of what the constitution allows. They dont involve granting voting rights to recent immigrants, splitting California into seven states, restricting the supreme courts right to review most cases, or any other long-shot scheme. In other words, should Democrats ever regain power in Washington, they wont have to choose between ambition and caution. They can exercise both and thanks to favorable demographic trends and the overall popularity of much of their policy agenda, they can be confident that they can maintain power by reflecting, rather than ignoring, the peoples will.

Ultimately, what is at stake in the fight over Ruth Bader Ginsburgs replacement is not merely who will serve on the nations highest court. Instead, its an idea laid out in one of the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, right after the part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Its no surprise that Donald Trump wants to govern without consent. But the constitution is clear: we dont have to let him do it.

David Litt, an American political speechwriter, is the author of the memoir Thanks, Obama: My Hopey Changey White House Years and Democracy in One Book or Less: How It Works, Why It Doesnt, and Why Fixing It Is Easier Than You Think

Here is the original post:
Republicans will replace RBG but Democrats hold the trump cards no, really - The Guardian

The Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote, in Anna Karenina: All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. This quote might well apply to the United States Congress, recently in recess. Arent both political parties in Congress unhappy in their own ways?

When Congress is in session, the United States flag flies over both the House and the Senate. The flags symbolize us. There are no donkeys or elephants on them. Article VII of the U.S. Constitution provides that the government is ours. It was the people of the country who established it and it was the people, in convention form, not the political parties, who ratified it (capitalization in the original).

Yet, these days when Congress is in session, the political parties seem to gain more attention by berating each other, instead of contributing meaningful discussion and action to resolve problems.

For example, when was the last time that we learned of progress on the following fronts: immigration reform, the Afghanistan war, our military deployments in the Middle East, infrastructure improvements including flood and fire control measures, and the COVID-19 crisis?

It also seems that Tolstoys quote applies to citizens across the land who today demonstrate less respect for each other than I have ever previously witnessed taking the lives of citizens who are under arrest, rioting and looting in urban areas both in favor of or opposed to the actions of others, the spraying of citizens peacefully assembling in our nations capital contribute anxiety, fear and a rending of our civic fabric.

In the Executive branch It is what it is is not a statement of empathy for the tens of thousands of families who have lost a loved one to the coronavirus, nor is it a coherent statement of policy directed to overcoming the current pandemic. Neither is sitting maskless, six inches apart on the White House grounds at a political rally consistent with recommendations from the medical community on how to avoid infection.

Political columnist Mark Shields has written: Citizenship has ceased to involve an individuals responsibilities but emphasized instead our personal rights. Self-sacrifice is out, and self-absorption and self-fulfillment are very much in. (June 30, 2015)

To respond, one offers the following known as the Indefinite Pronoun Story, in a condensed version of a poem by Charles Osgood:

Everybody, Somebody, Nobody and Anybody

When there was an important job to be done, Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. When Nobody did it, Everybody got angry because it was Everybodys job. Everybody thought that Somebody would do it, but Nobody realized that Nobody would do it. So it ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done in the first place.

I propose that the point is, if any one of us sees that a job needs to be done, then we should attempt to do it ourselves instead of waiting for somebody else to do it. Then we dont have to worry about blaming somebody else; instead, we come to realize that we have lived up to our responsibility .

So as we remember our heroes of 9/11, may the people of the U.S. and the members of Congress discover another meaning from the story: that the ability to find true happiness in life depends upon the capacity to give it while fulfilling our obligation to others.

As Tolstoy writes elsewhere in Anna Karenina : If you look for perfection, youll never be content.

Thomas F. Hogan is a resident of Litchfield.

Go here to read the rest:
Opinion: Responsibility and happiness - Torrington Register Citizen

The National LGBTQ Task Force was founded 47 years ago, when antisodomy laws and bar raids were common and many health professionals considered gay and bi people ill. Lobbying for change in the halls of power, the D.C.-based organization chipped away at discriminatory laws and challenged Democrats to stand by their queer constituency, working to secure rights through the Reagan era and the devastation of AIDS.

By the time Rea Carey began to leave a mark on the Task Force as deputy executive director in 2004, the marriage equality battle was raging and a backlash brewing. While the Task Force was central in the fight for marriage, it was far from the organization's only issue, as it also advocated for immigration reform, protections for LGBTQ+ families, trans rights, and racial justice. Through all this, Carey who became executive director of the organization 12 years ago remained a determined, calm presence who put the work first.

Under Carey's leadership, the Task Force's Creating Change conferences attracted LGBTQ+ activists from around the country for lively and sometimes controversial discussions. Most recently, the group marshaled its resources to ensurequeer participation in the U.S. Census, fighting against the Trump administration's efforts to reduce LGBTQ+ representation in the national population count that determines billions in funding and the distribution of Congressional seats.

Now Carey is preparing to leave the Task Force, handing over the reins early next year to Kierra Johnson, a bisexual woman of color currently serving as deputy executive director. We spoke with Carey about why this was the time to go, and what's next for her storied organization.

The Advocate: Tell us about your history with The Task Force.Rea Carey: I've been at the Task Force in some ways, in my heart, since I was 16 years old. I remember in Denver I'd go to this women's bookstore, about the time I was coming out, and I read about the Task Force and I thought, Thisis a cool organization. I never actually dreamed I would end up working there.

I actually joined the Task Force first as senior strategist and then as deputy executive director in 2004, and I became executive director in 2008, so about 17 years [I've worked there] or, in movement years, 276 years.

Why was now the right time to leave?I've been thinking about it for a while. There were certain things I wanted to achieve and that I told the board I wanted to achieve when I came on as executive director in 2008. And with the staff and our volunteers and thousands of activists across the country, we've achievedso much and, actually, more than I ever could have imagined.

Because I'm an organizational nerd, I actually know it's very good and healthy for organizations to have different leaders at different times. So I've been planning for it and the time is now; the time is right.

I will say I have a bit of sadness because this year doesn't look like how I thought it would. I had hoped I'd be able to travel around the country and spend time with people we've been doing grassroots organizing work with for decades; having house parties and raising some money off of me and being in-person at [the] Creating Change [conference] this year. Unfortunately, because of COVID those things aren't possible. But like we're doing in different ways, we're adapting, and there are others ways I'll get to connect with people this year.

Tell us about the woman who will replace you and the future of the Task Force.I'm so excited that we are also announcing our next executive director is Kierra Johnson, who has served as our deputy executive director for almost the last three years and was on the board of directors; she's been a colleague of mine for years. She recently used to run a reproductive justice organization called Urge and she's dynamic and brilliant and energized.

It's anyone's dream when they leave an organization to leave it with someone who's even more wonderful and perfect for the organization, and she is. She's spent a lot of time doing advocacy organizing and grassroots; doing national advocacy as well. So she'll be starting as ED in February 2021. She's really been a true partner over the last number of years. We've continued to move the organization forward fully as a racial, economic, gender and social justice organization that serves the LGBTQ community. So she's bringing all her experience to the next era of the Task Force.

How are advocacy organizations like the Task Force adapting to fundraising challenges in the COVID era?With COVID and the entire country shutting down in March a lot has changed. And I'll say, basically, there are no silver linings to COVID, but here are some opportunities.Whether it's fundraising and reaching out to a much broader set of people through our online engagement or our trainings very soon we have a racial justice training, and in the past we would hold that in this or that city and we'd be able to gather a 100 or so people in person. Well, this year, as soon as we opened registration people began signing up. The same with [the] Creating Change [conference]; we'd usually have between 3,000 to 4,000 people there. What we've been learning from our colleagues who have also hosted conferences is that, while the format is different and we don't get to be together in person, it actually makes it accessible to people who never could have afforded to fly or take a bus to another city or place in the country, and they can actually be in community and learn from each other and share strategies.

Also, we're running the LGBTQ outreach for the U.S. Census. But again we had a game plan, going door to door, across the country, asking people to sign up, telling them why it's important our lives are seen and counted, and we haven't been able to do that. But we were able, with some increased funding, to have a massive, massive online campaign, and we're probably reaching people we never would have reached with our Queer the Census campaign.

Where do you think the Task Force and the larger LGBTQ+ movement will be in five to 10 years? What will be the main focus?Certainly, in five to 10 years I expect us to have secured federal nondiscrimination protections. As you know, we won the Supreme Court ruling this summer securing employment protections but we have a long way to go. But in five to 10 years, I absolutely believe we'll have federal protections. But we still won't be finished. Securing freedom and equality and equity is really a life's work, not just for one organization, but the full movement.

We were talking about COVID earlier, so what we've seen even in the last six months is that the disparities that we knew already existed; the health disparities, the access disparities, the racial disparities, the violence that has existed for so long against so many members of our community and Black people in this country has only become more pronounced and more acute. We have learned from movements that have come before us, even if you secure laws, it doesn't mean that everyone can live their life to the fullest. So the future work of the Task Force and the future work of the movement, which is to ensure our vision and I know Kierra shares this vision, and I think will take it even further than I have ever been able to [is to]seek change based on all of us being whole people. We can't be a lesbian one day, a parent the next day, and Latinx the third day; we're all of those things every day. Until we move the country and not just the laws fully in a direction where ever single one of us can be fully who we are, our movement's work will not be complete.

What was your hardest moment leading the Task Force and your proudest moment?It's hard to pick one that was the hardest. We faced a lot of challenges; we lost at the ballot on marriage, 32, 33 times before we started winning. We were not successful as a broader progressive community in securing immigration reform. There are some bigger-picture things I certainly wish had gone a certain way. There are a couple moments that really encapsulate some of the hardest moments.

I was in Los Angeles for the election in 2008. We had been going door to door on Prop. 8 [the ballot initiative that sought to reverse marriage equality in California]. We had been calling people; we brought people of faith to the table. We had done everything we possibly could as well as our colleagues on the ground and from around the country. And I remember that night, the leadership of different organizations coming together to have a pep rally in the middle of the night. We still hadn't gotten the presidential results or results on Prop. 8. We were concerned that the direction things were headed in for Prop. 8 were not good, but were hopeful for Obama. I remember getting on that stage and trying to dig deep for hope. And at 5 the next morning, when were still hoping there were more ballots to be counted, but we knew we were nearing the end and it still took a couple of days to sort it all out.

The feeling of elation over the first-ever Black president was one of the highest highs I've ever felt, and realizing that so many of our coworkers and neighbors, congregation members, had voted for Prop. 8 and against our ability to create the kind of families we want, was devastating. And we had lost before and we lost after, but there was something about Prop. 8 and the combination of the election with the president that really was one of our hardest points. At the same time, it turned into one of the most extraordinary catalysts for our community. After that, people who had never been engaged in this work, got engaged. Even with fear in their hearts, people got up the courage to come out and talk about why [marriage equality] mattered.

Even some of the most bitter moments have turned into opportunities for us. One other time that was both heartbreaking but gave me hope, and still gives me hope, was The Task Force and I were very involved in the comprehensive immigration reform work. At the time, most of our movement and most of our community was focused only on binational couples when it came to immigration as a policy matter. So the Task Force worked hard to make sure that our community really understood what immigration and immigration reform would mean. That it isn't only about binational couples, it's about trans immigrants, it's about families, it's about folks coming to this country and even then, treated in horrible, horrible conditions.

I was part of two civil disobedience actions that took place in D.C. one with women from many movements who came together and sat down in the streets and got arrested in protests. And the other was with young people; young immigrants. I thought, if they can sit down in the street and risk so much, we can too. So there are moments like that that have given me hope. I know at this time we need a lot of hope.

Thank you for all the work and years of effort that you and the Task Force have put into our lives and the equality movement.I have been honored to serve a movement and a community of which I'm a part. I have no doubt, even with the challenges we face now, that our history of resilience and determination and fierceness is going to win the day.

Go here to read the rest:
Rea Carey on Why She's Leaving the National LGBTQ Task Force - Advocate.com

Current Odyssey Project student Faleshuh Walker created this piece, earning second place for artwork in this years Why Vote? contest.

For Hedi Rudd, the decision to vote is both personal and powerful. In her award-winning essay for the 2020 Why Vote? project contest, she writes of the significance of her vote:

My vote will tell my children and grandchildren that I stood against corruption and racism and that I dont ignore the past but learn from it. My vote will tell my friends that I care about their access to healthcare and immigration reform. It will tell my neighbors that I believe in their right to protest, their right to housing and their right to hold leaders accountable. It will tell the world that humanity and our planet are sacred.

For more than a decade, the Why Vote? contest has asked current and former students of the University of WisconsinMadison Odyssey Project to create an original work that convinces people to get out the vote.

The contest is a prelude to the nonpartisan event, A Celebration of Voting, which this year takes place online, Saturday, October 3, from 2 to 3:30 p.m. The celebration is designed to share voting information with attendees; representatives from The League of Women Voters will be on hand to answer voting questions.

A robust, inspiring program will feature Rudd and other Odyssey Project students and alumni, who will share their award-winning essays, poems and artwork, as well as short presentations on voting by prominent local leaders and actors, including:

The event is free and open to the public. Those interested in attending should complete the online registration form for access to the Zoom link.

A Celebration of Voting is presented biennially by the UW Odyssey Project, a program that empowers adults to overcome adversity and achieve dreams through higher education. Each year, the Odyssey Project offers a free two-semester humanities class for 30 adults, providing textbooks, childcare and a weekly dinner. They earn six credits in English from UWMadison, as well as gain critical thinking skills and a sense of empowerment. Many go on to complete a college degree and find meaningful work in the community.

The Odyssey class emphasizes civic engagement, with readings from Socrates, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Martin Luther King, Jr. Students make connections between historic civil rights struggles and their own lives.

Odyssey Project Director Emily Auerbach says that the A Celebration of Voting event is a natural complement to the program, which strives to help students develop and use their voices.

Civic engagement has been one of Odysseys goals since its beginning in 2003, Auerbach says. We want to encourage our students, their families and the broader community to become excited about voting, get practical information about how to vote and use the power of their own voices to convince others to vote.

Stanley Sallay, Odyssey 07, used the power of the pencil to create his award-winning illustration for this years Why Vote? contest. Replete with symbolism and detail, his drawing is largely a study of those who neglected to vote. The central figure, Sallay writes, is a man running as if hes in a rush. I dont have time to figure out whos running and vote. The road that hes running on is broken and leads to nowhere. The pair of dice near his feet is showing how hes choosing to leave his future to chance.

Sallay says the illustration was inspired by the idea of votes lost to those who are unwilling or unable to vote or who dont believe its important.

I didnt vote four years ago because I thought there was no way Trump would win, he says. Since then, Ive wondered how many votes didnt happen because of people who thought the same.

For more information on the Odyssey Project, see theprogram websiteor contact director Emily Auerbach at emily.auerbach@wisc.edu. To donate to the program or become a volunteer, visit theSupport Odyssey webpage.

See the original post:
Odyssey Project students and local leaders to celebrate voting at online event - University of Wisconsin-Madison