Politick

This rant was inspired by an online chat I had with someone who was not even of voting age who was parroting what he had heard his parent(s) saying. He had no basis for any of his flaming rhetoric, and when I confronted him with logic, he changed the subject rather than admit that he might be wrong.

Let's talk about something that inspires foaming at the mouth, fights among friends and lovers, and irrational ignorance on a massive scale. Politics. Politics, that is, as they are in the United States.

In the beginning...

For those who live in other nations and have never been a part of the process, it may be hard to fathom why there is voter apathy. In other countries, people literally kill each other for the right to do such a thing. I am not going to discuss the motives for that, but the United States was founded upon the belief that all people should be able to make their voice heard. Although this was not truly equal when the United States was founded, many years of strife and agony all creeds and colors of people in the United States has finally earned equal privileges when it comes to the voting booth. Many in the United States fail to realize that their vote is the loudest voice many will ever have in how the country is run. It may not seem like much, that one little vote, and even less so when you consider the Electoral College (more on that later), but the presidential election of 2000 should have proved beyond a doubt how much it really does matter. In 2000, the race for president was very close and literally came down to only a few votes making the difference. At that time many citizens of the United States did not visit the polls and cast their votes. The result was that the Supreme Court ended up making a decision on whom the Chief Executive was to be. This action outraged many ("Commander in Thief") but proved the system of checks and balances works - to some degree.

Apathy and the Two Party System

So why, then, is there such apathy in the electorate? Why do people not go and vote for the candidate that they prefer? It could be many things. A chief problem is the two-party system. You have two choices, and if you do not like either of the candidates, then what are you to do? Many choose to do nothing. Those who choose to do nothing, though, would be wise to keep their mouths shut for the next four years if they disagree with how the country is being run. You had your chance to exercise your voice, your opinion - and if you chose silence then, then silence now is a safe bet. Maybe in the next election the unhappy and apathetic among the voting public will get out and help make a choice. This, friends, is what democracy is. In reality we have a republic instead of a democracy, but these two terms are the basis of the two major party's names. True to form, the Democratic party tends to favor the individual and the Republican party leans towards the status quo.

You do not have to agree with who is in the Oval Office, but the majority has chosen that person to lead the country for a four year period. If you want change, then change it with your actions. If the incumbent party is your preference, say so with your vote. If not, vote them out. But please do not complain for four years about something you were unwilling to participate in. You cede the right to whine when you are not part of the process, as far as I am concerned.

The "Lines" Are Drawn

Uninformed voters are dangerous creatures, also. Do you, or someone you know, just vote down the party line? I know many who do. They do not evaluate the issues on their merits and they do not learn about the candidates and their stances. They listen to parents, spouses, friends - those who have vigorous opinions and whom are a part of their lives. A favorite exercise of mine is to call out someone who takes a hard line stance and see what their reasoning is. Often times, there really is no reasoning. They have never prepared for the moment that someone will ask "why" and are even less comfortable with the notion of debate. If you fall into this category, you need to realize that "because" and "that's how it is" are not valid arguments -- for anything.

Case in point, and reason for this diatribe: just recently I had someone telling me that "{candidate} is an ass." I asked why that was so...and the reason provided was "because he is." I remain unconvinced. Further reason was offered to me: "he is a rich-ass who doesn't know shit." Very convincing, that. At the level of senatorial and presidential races, every politician is a "rich-ass" -- they have to be in order to get that far. Can you afford a thirty second spot on prime-time television, not to mention the cost of producing a spot to run there? Keep in mind that you have to pay each time that advertisement is run, and running it once will do you no good whatsoever. Those in political power in the United States are there because they are good at fund raising; it is impossible for the common man with few means to obtain public office of that level.

Time Changes Everything

The governmental establishment has the feel of an exclusive club, a vacuum where power resides but reality does not. When the United States was founded, it was a vastly different world and society and the models that formed the basis of our government came from that world. There was no mass media, no broadcast medium such as television or radio, where mass exposure to the populace comes at a price. Certainly wealth was a factor in the early political game, but not nearly to the extent that it is now. Early politicians did not have to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars in media blitzes. There simply was no prime-time television or network news. People were more isolated and less affected by remote events. There were farms to maintain, there was food to put on the table - same as today, but the landscape is radically different now than it was two hundred years ago.

In modern times, politicians have to be adept at raising funds to pay for time on the television. Prime time exposure to a nation of people who sit in the phosphorescent glow of a cathode ray tube is not cheap. An immediate effect of this is that anyone without a few million dollars in their campaign fund can never be heard. Many unique and original ideas wither and die for want of exposure. To rectify this would mean that broadcast corporations - capitalist organizations who have a responsibility to the bottom line and shareholders - would need to give time to all comers who want to be heard in an election either for free or at drastically reduced rates. Corporate America has never been fond of giving anything away; they are in the business to make money, after all. The lawmakers who make use of this conduit to the public have no incentive to regulate this either: they are established and this is a way to fend off the threat of losing their job. They have no real incentive to reign in the cash machine that provides their stature and livelihood.

The Root of All Evil

Apathy has many causes. What has been lost is the ideal that politicians should represent their constituents. Greed is inherent in the human race and excessive amounts of money corrupt even the most rigid. Our system has not changed with the times and has not kept pace with the explosion in population, nor the information systems that feed those citizens. It has instead become entrenched and out of touch with the needs of the day to day lives of the general population. Voters sense this, they know it at some level whether conscious or not, and they respond by throwing their hands into the air and saying "it doesn't matter." The sad part is, it does matter but only if we do something about it. Whether that means you get involved in a campaign or just cast your vote is irrelevant. The answer is informed participation. The information is there for you to consume. Educate yourself in current issues.

The Electoral College complicates this matter by reducing the effectiveness of the popular vote. Instead of winning a majority of the constituents to their cause, politicians need only to carry "swing states" and get the electoral votes. In theory, the Electoral College is great - but in reality, it fails. Its relevance has failed in modern times when the means to accurately tally the popular vote nearly instantaneously is available. In a nutshell, it works like this: if a candidate wins a majority in a state, they win all the electoral votes. Every single, last one. This does not accurately reflect the wishes of the individual voters.

Needed Change

A four year term for the presidency of the United States is ridiculous. Forget the partisan Congress. An elected President serves a four year term, with an option for four more years. This results in a candidate spending six months establishing their new administration - now down to three and a half years of truly effective governing - and then spends nine to twelve months campaigning for re-election after four years. Sure, those are random numbers, but think about it: a newly elected President spends a great deal of time vying to keep the office for another four years.

So how do we fix this? I propose this: one six-year term for an elected president, and no second term. In six years, a lot can be accomplished, particularly if there is no need to hit the road and drum up support for a second term. Even Presidents who have landed the full eight years spend a lot of time trying to ensure that the opposing party does not take the most visible governing seat in the land. Remove this problem and give the Commander in Chief the opportunity to do something meaningful with their time. If at the end of six years they have proven themselves incapable, chances are strong that the opposing party would be given a chance to do something different.

But please, oh please, shut your mouth if you are not willing to participate. Mass ignorance is far worse than any President's failures.