Our political system is messed up. Mainly, I think, because it is based on the premise that the average citizen can make an informed decision about who is best suited to lead the country.

Or is it? This electoral college bullshit really skews the actual pulse of the voting population. Obama had 52% of the popular vote. That means to me, that the election was a lot closer, almost 50/50, and not the landslide that the electoral college results would seem to indicate.

How is it that this antiquated process is still in effect today? Election results are not really results, but prove how such a horrible and antiquated system lacks any semblance of true "results."

I was not pro-Obama nor pro-McCain, just to set the record straight. I believe that the President is more of a moral leader than an actual "business leader" as the propaganda world lead us to believe. The President alone can not change the fate of the Country; at least not in the system of government we have. If we elected a dictator, then this would be true.

We are not in an economic struggle because of the war or because of Republicans. We are in an economic down turn that is influenced by time and because the average citizen is truthfully stupid. Think of it this way: most people characterize themselves as "smart." Lets, for argument sake, assume that this is true and you, the reader, are "smart." That means you are at the top of the proverbial "bell curve" and therefore, 95% of the rest of us are "dumber" than you. Since everyone can vote, the bulk of the voting population is "dumb." You have two choices: 1) admit that you too are dumb, or 2) agree that most people are dumb.

History shows us that everything is a cycle... the ice ages are cycles, the seasons and days are cycles. The economic status of a country is also cyclic, or more like a roller-coaster. The actions of a President, in my opinion, are more reactive than proactive, and our election process is simply a point in time on the endless rollercoaster. If Obama were elected President back in 2004, we would still be at war, and the economy would still be falling down the roller coaster ride. And we probably would have elected a McCain this go around as a reaction to the failing Democrats, as would have been the headlines of the day.

Back to the point about average human stupidity: people think that "change" of party will result in a "change" in the economy. As explained above, our election process lacks true "results" and therefore by simple transitive argument, the elected change will have a similar lack of result. Notice how the markets fell the days following the election? True economics are only influenced by politics, not controlled by it. What will "change" is public perception, and I do agree that this has more mass than the actual actions of an elected President.

I agree that we needed to heighten the morale of the country, and that is the only reason why Obama's election was acceptable; clearly he lacks the skill set that historically "good" Presidents of the past have held. McCain had these properties, but lacked the connection to the "common (dumb)" folk.

What is worst about the current economic/political situation is that there is some misguided perception that economic redistribution is needed and/or a good idea. Sorry, I work hard for my money and am sick and tired of paying for those that choose not to work, plan for the future, or make excuses that they have been repressed. The average person makes money because they work for it, not because they had a "privileged" life.

I can’t figure out the true “result” of the election, except perhaps that I need to buy an island and create my own government. However it will be some time, because the socialist regime will be taking more of my hard-earned money from me and giving it to the average citizen to waste away.

1 comments so far...