But I'm a denizen of the internet, and the internet wants me to care. So here I go, trying to form an opinion.
In my opinion, the system is freaky. America might have less levels of government than I'm used to, but by God can they organise a cat's cradle of a solution for a potential problem.
You have to register to vote, for starters. Because of voting fraud. The twenty-first century and there's no identity card system in place where you show who you are and your name can be on a computer in such a way it can be found and checked if you show up at a voting whatchamacallit.
Then there's the solution in place for when there's a tie in the votes. It's convoluted, full of bugs, unfair and, crazily, can still end in a tie. Voting again doesn't seem to be an option.
Not even all Americans vote. A lot of the screaming loonies on tv, newspapers and the internet will not get off their butt and take half an hour out of their day to vote. They'll cry foul and shame no matter what the outcome or possibilities, though.
I don't know why this offends me. (Note: It offends me equally in all nationalities.) I hate voting when I'm forced to. Voting isn't fun. But it's a right people fought for for at least three hundred years. If we can't, we raise hell that we want to influence our community, at least a little, by choosing representatives. And now one of the most powerful nations on earth (one who, subjectively, spent quite a lot of time raising hell to be independent, have a democracy, have a president, have voting rights for all citizens, all colors and all genders) hasn't had 60% percent of the available voters voting for ages. The turnout has, quite literally, been one of two egible citizens voting since the seventies. I thought it was 'Out of many, one'? Apparently, it's 'Out of half, one'. My bad, I guess.
This drives me up the walls more than usual, because the US presidential election has more influence over my life than, say, the Brazilian presidential election.
When it comes to the candidates themselves, both Romney and Obama seem like okay guys. Which isn't saying much. People with dirty laundry to be aired generally don't run for president. Those that try generally get shamed in withdrawing or lose. They choose someone who can charm the pants off of a crowd or guilt them into voting, as far as I can tell.
What Romney's religion has to do with it, I really don't see. True, Americans are generally seen as a religious people, but the only faith they seem honestly suspicious about is atheism. And, on a purely theoretical standpoint, America is a secular nation. The Founding Fathers, as a lot of memes, facebook posts and even some books I've read recently, were technical atheists. Several of the twentieth century presidents were even apalled at the idea of people voting on them because they were, for example, the only Catholic candidate in the running. I'd be offended, too. Thirty-something years old, probably over two decades of hard work trying to make the world a better place and people said you are right to run the country because of when and where and how your parents (in most cases) decided to pour water over your head, chop a piece of your whackadoodle, hold you upside down over a plate of steaming pasta or whatever the custom is. That's not voting. That's being a sheep.
Obama has done a good job, as far as I can tell. You can't move the planet out of orbit with political action in four years. As much as our current society would like it otherwise, it takes time to see effects. Some of his promises haven't been fufilled because of this, and people have taken offense. He is, however, not a president that is widely known as someone who needs an adult when his backside needs wiping. He is intelligent, he is well-liked. Most of his screw-ups have been relatively minor. To be honest, the only one I can really remember is where he didn't defend himself in a debate a few weeks ago. If he has an evil-masterplan (and he's a politician, so there will be some 'You never mentioned that part!' outcries after the election should he win), he's hiding it very well.
The novelty of a colored president has worn off however, so now he has to be a significantly better option than the white candidate. It's a harsh thing to say, but it's true. Success is a thing for white men in our society. Anyone else has to be twice as good at everything to be noticed.
Romney is less popular, and less liberal and more extremist in his campaigns so the internet has bombarded me with bad things about him. Some of them make me want to e-mail people and ask if they've taken their antipsychotics in the last week. I particularly remember someone claiming all he's done right was, and I quote, 'not eat any phallic foods during rallies'. Say what? You have to do more than resist the temptation of a public hotdog to run for US president, last time I checked.
Wait, let me check again.
Okay, so a quick skim of his wikipedia page says he organised a successful Winter Olympics, provided (the possibility of) health care for his state without Senate twisting his arm, used
Other things make me want to e-mail Romney instead. I'm not going to regurgitate all the bile I've had inserted in my youtube subscriptions, facebook feeds and Wii news channel. But when you have three people as a part of your campaign who say, basically, that there's no such thing as rape or that rape is anything but a bad thing... Well, even if you only have fifty to sixty percent of voters, you have to assume some of the men are going to vote for the opponent. Hell, that kind of stunt might make women voters turn up to vote Obama out of fear and/or spite.
I'm not even touching the snake's nest of gender-fuzzy marriage. I'm feverishly praying for silent majority issues muddying that particular no-brainer.
The last thing that confuses me more is the debates. I agree that politicians should debate and be interviewed on their viewpoints, and more agressively depending on the level of power they're aiming to receive. Germany could have done with a few debates around 1933.
What I don't get is that there's apparently a winner. And the winner changes, even though it's the same opponents and the same presidential race. And people base their votes on who wins? Do they really?
I see how your opponent will point out the flaws in your agenda that you're trying to hide. That's a good thing. And defending them, nuancing them, that's even better. Having it all caught on film is fantastic.
But, as any secondary school teacher will tell you, any normally developed human being, around the age of thirteen, fourteen years old, will have grasped the concept of thinking creatively to the point where different people offer different solutions to a problem. Some are better, true, some are prettier, but if both parties offer a solution that will benefit a sizeable chunk of the population, you can't really say that one party failed to do what was asked of it.
From what I can tell, the debates are mostly popularity contests and exercises in muck-raking just the same way a state rally is. I don't want a reality tv element to politics. I want the debate settled, without any media commenting on it. Assume your voters are smart enough to watch it, read transcripts, hear it on the radio and decide for themselves which seemed like the more elegant solution.
Hell, if I was Obama, I'd keep my mouth shut, too. He can come with a solution to remove all US debt and deficit that will work quickly, efficiently, but mean people will be slightly less comfortable for two years, and all Romney has to do is offer a solution that's less effective and/or durable, but means Americans don't have to consider their budget before supersizing their next hamburger menu, and the audience will press the button to drop Obama in the tank of piranhas as quickly as their pudgy fingers will allow.
Then again, maybe Obama has a death ray.
I'm concluding that the entirety of the United States seems to get LSD drips for every vaguely presidentially, electorally whoop-ti-doo that passes in front of a camera or microphone and I'm going to spend my time doing productive things, like blending my cauliflower soup. It should be done by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment