You know, at this point I barely care whether he votes yes or no.
What I want to know is why Senator Greg Ball of New York bothered to ask millions of people on Twitter how they would vote on the state's Marriage Equality Act, the bill that's all the rage where progressives and traditionalists gather online. He tweeted right into the center of what is known 'round these parts as a "hot-button issue".
"Opening up the discussion! So, if you were me, how would you vote on gay marriage? Yes or No? "
"...everyone's voice had been heard."
Maybe it was a rhetorical question.
Nobody took it that way. Senator Ball's tweet to whom it may concern shot across the twitterverse, retweeted and passed on between best friends and strangers, far beyond the invisible lines drawn around the senator's district. And Twitter replied to him. Boy did it. Posting passionate pleas, blunt opinions, angry commands, and gratitude for the chance to speak up, thousands replied to Senator Ball's tweet. Both sides of the aisle represented themselves.
Because, well, he asked.
Today, the senator released
this official statement:
"Knowing that marriage equality was likely to pass, I thought it important to force the issue of religious protections. Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the distinct opportunity of listening to literally thousands of residents, on both sides of this issue, by holding an undecided stance. I thought it was important to listen to all of my constituents and hold an undecided position until the actual bill language was written and everyone’s voice had been heard. Now that the final text is public, I am proud that I have secured some strong protections for religious institutions and basic protections for religious organizations. The bill still lacks many of the basic religious protections I thought were vital, and for this reason, and as I did in the Assembly, I will be voting 'no'."Am I wrong?
I mean, is it just me, or was "everyone's voice" pretty much or entirely irrelevant on a realistic level?
You can easily divide the official statement into two pieces.
"Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the distinct opportunity of listening to literally thousands of residents, on both sides of this issue, by holding an undecided stance. I thought it was important to listen to all of my constituents and hold an undecided position until the actual bill language was written and everyone’s voice had been heard."That by itself sounds like the feedback of others was significant. It could be argued that opinions sent from outside Ball's district were not significant, since he is bound to represent his constituents, not tweeters from Miami and Seattle and Little Rock. But not only is it not always obvious where a person on Twitter lives, it's also a fact that tweets are available to anyone who sees them. If you don't need to know what the whole world thinks you'd better make that clear from the start.
But I think we can safely agree that the passage gives the impression that the feedback of at least some of the citizenry mattered to him.
Here's piece #2:
"Knowing that marriage equality was likely to pass, I thought it important to force the issue of religious protections. Now that the final text is public, I am proud that I have secured some strong protections for religious institutions and basic protections for religious organizations. The bill still lacks many of the basic religious protections I thought were vital, and for this reason, and as I did in the Assembly, I will be voting 'no'."In that passage, feedback didn't matter at all.
If you wanted him to vote yes, he considered "religious protections" of more importance than your views of equality. If you wanted him to vote no, your concerns would be out of luck if the bill had been written to his satisfaction.
Twitter. Learn to use it.Why'd you even ask anyone what they thought, Senator Greg Ball?
He never promised to vote in concert with Twitter's majority opinion. But he's not an opinion-mongering pundit on MSNBC or Fox News, innocently "opening up the discussion" for fun and profit. He actually has the power to make stuff happen or keep things the same. Which is why
so many people replied in the first place.
My boyfriend's feelings are that Ball doesn't know how to use Twitter. While sifting through page after page of replies to the senator I didn't see one person who thought the senator was merely curious, or feeling sociable, or not terribly interested. An elected official can't ask a
hot-button question like that on a social network and not expect people to respond strongly, and with the assumption that their thoughts were requested for a reason.
Stuff like this is why people have little to no faith in the democratic process.
Stuff like this is proof that while it's important for politicians to use social networks, it is also important for them to understand HOW to use social networks.
Stuff like this ticks me off more than it should.
Leave a message at the beep (3)