VOTING IN A WHOLESALE FASHION.

One would say that things were heating up between Gingrich and Romney, the two Republican Party presidential candidates, as the Florida primary got underway a week or so from now.

That would be an understatement; for they (things) were simmering, as the candidates were gearing themselves up to salvage all the votes they could get to win the primary, and then went on to have the Republican nod.

The person succeeding in doing so, would then become the challenger to President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

The polls there were showing different percentage points between Gingrich and Romney, and despite which poll one looked at, they were all too close to call.

Yet, there seemed to be that the two camps, particularly, had one thing in common, and that was to win the Hispanic vote. To have a lion's share of it was what they were both aiming to do. Santorum and Paul seemed to be mere participants or just hangers-on, in that respect.

The question arose, however, whether Americans should be voting along ethnic lines, and for that matter, a particular social group should be voting in a wholesale fashion, one way or the other, based on ethnicity or ethnic affiliation.

Politics, in general, happened to be a great divider, as parties should have a clear watershed between their policies to ensure their differences, so as to be able to attract an organized following; and though there might be some people who would address themselves as being moderates, and would not choose to wholly belong or accept specific ideologies, but they would have some sympathy for this or that party. In some way, they always had a hard time in selecting the party to vicariously follow.

However, getting voters to think on racial or ethnic lines was more than divisive for a country that called itself United; it was destructive, to say the least.

One person might be the right choice in a political contest, in terms of his or her demographic background, but because of his or her race or ethnicity, he or she would not have the majority of people voting for him or her. The least favorite or the wrong choice would be made; and if that was not troubling, then nothing should be.

That was what the Florida primary seemed to be headed; and that was to get Hispanics to vote for the choice of the group, instead of making up their own minds in regards to whom they thought was more or better qualified.

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary were different in the way that the candidates campaigned. In other words, in those states, they presented themselves without anything being said about their race or historical connections; for example, that Santorum had Italian lineage or Romney had Spanish cousins.

They might have mentioned that themselves, but that was not going to have any influence on the outcome of the voting. Or even, if it did, it was not going to be as clear cut as what the Florida primary was purporting or turning out to be; Hispanics on one side and other people on the other.

One thing that Romney said that made a great deal of sense was that, if he became president, he would have Fidel Castro "removed from this planet,"

That caught the attention of many people that, with Communism gone from Cuba, the people there would be very fortunate to have relations with the United States, that would transform the political fervor in that country; and many Cubans would have the opportunity to go back home or to their native land.

Gingrich could also be many voters' preference, because he had said that deporting people, who have been living illegally in the U.S. for many years, was not a good idea. In his view, that policy was doing nothing, but breaking up families. That was not what it (policy) should be designed to do.

That meant that, if he became president, he would have a policy to approach the issue in a relatively humanitarian way; and if that did not win him votes in Florida, nothing else would.

Coming back to the Florida primary itself, the people should be allowed to research the policies and ideologies of the candidates, which would be the factors upon how they should cast their votes; rather than shoving them as sheep into a barn.

It was true that parties were set up to show their differences, for people to have a chance to express themselves or to associate with whomever they preferred; and canvassing on racial or ethnic inclination, though it was improper, it would seem unfair to set it aside, as some people would like that to be their preference. That was referred to as freedom of choice; and it could not be ruled out.

Nevertheless, America would be better off without racism and other divisive influences, whether they were of ethnic or tribal persuasion.

Probably, conscience, instead of conscious, vote should be what America needed most.