Stupor Tuesday

The American political system is screwed up. Completely mental. Particularly the circus that is the Primary Election and especially today, which I call Stupor Tuesday. There are a few points about the American presidential election that have been especially annoying lately. Here they are:

1 - The fact that we have primary elections in the first place.

2- The incessant and tainted polling system that surrounds all of our elections.

3- The over-estimation of Presidential power 

4- Political Parties and false division.

Lets look at these points. I won't get into too much detail, since I am sure I could write a volume on each point, but I just want to explain why I am bothered so much by each of these individual things.

#1 - Why on earth do we need multiple pre-elections before an election? Personally, I think the whole idea is insulting. It is almost as if the establishment believes the American people are incapable of choosing between 3 or 4 people, so the political parties (in their magnanimity and selflessness) whittle down the choices to just two options. Heaven knows the choice between A or B is enormously simpler than the choice between A or B or C or D. Nobody in the general population can be trusted to be smart enough to pick a president from more than 2 choices!

Give me a break. If I went to a restaurant and the waiter told me to chose one side of the menu, I would laugh at him. If he then told me to narrow down my choices to just one dish from either side, I would likely get up and leave. If, however, the cooks got together and chose just two entrees to offer me, I would never have gone to that restaurant in the first place. That is precisely what the primary elections do. I think it is messed up. I am completely capable (as are almost all people) of looking at a menu and deciding what I want from a multiplicity of choices. I am also capable of looking at a multiplicity of candidates from all across the spectrum and choosing the one that I want. I do not need my options to be reduced to A or B. Often, the candidate that I like the most does not even win the primary, so I end up having to chose between 2 people I dislike equally, as in the election between George W. and Al Gore (or the Loser and the Snoozer, as I liked to call them). In that election I threw my vote away. I wrote Mickey Mouse on the ballot and voted for him. I had to, because the candidates I was actually excited about did not make it through the primary elections. That is fundamentally messed up, and we deserve better as a people.

 #2 Polls of any kind dealing with election results should be completely illegal. My apologies to Dan Jones and other pollsters, but I think you are damaging our democracy. Of course, inquiring minds want to know how an election is running over the course of a day. I get that. People are curious. However, that is not the only role that polls have. Over a race as protracted and complicated as a presidential campaign, public opinion changes over time. Polls that come out claim to merely reflect those changes, but in reality they influence opinion as much as they report it. I spoke once with Dan Jones himself (I took a Poly Sci class from him, and even worked for him for over a year) and he told me that he was concerned about that effect so much, that he once considered closing shop because of it. He was seriously concerned that he was influencing elections by telling people what the results were likely to be before the election was over.

When you are watching poll results, you have an interest in the election. If you have not yet voted (and maybe would not have voted) and you see that your candidate is performing poorly,  you are more likely to rush out and vote. That is one scenario. The other, more damaging one, is when you are completely in love with the policies and personality of a candidate, but that person is performing miserably in the polls. Because you think that person has no chance to win, you give your vote to someone else. However, if there were no polls, you would not have changed your vote. Repeat that process millions of times, and elections can end drastically differently. They would reflect what people actually wanted, rather than our human tendency to cheer for the winning team.

#3 The President writes no laws, votes on no laws, funds no laws, defends no laws, and amends no laws. The office has much power, and is in charge of the military, sure. However, the President can have all the policy wishes in the world he wants, and still not get anything done if Congress opposes him. Remember Bill Clinton? How many of his more liberal ideas were quashed by a conservative Congress? It happens all the time. Why then, when the President can only affect change with the cooperation of more than 300 individuals, do we care so much about Presidential policy stances? I think the only reason candidates evoke their policies is to draw a line in the sand, so that people can know where they stand, and what makes them different. I wish they would just say that, rather than making grand claims about what they will change when they get into office. Maybe this is a little thing, but I would much prefer a candidate who says "I think that global warming is a problem" over one that says "If elected, I will stop greenhouse emissions by 2008" because the first is an honest statement of belief, and the second is a vain promise that is nearly impossible to keep in the best of circumstances.

#4 I hate political parties. I think George Washington was right to oppose them at the very beginning, and I oppose them still today. We do not need them. They falsely divide the country between right and left, when most of us are somewhere in the middle. The parties exist for one thing only: gain power and keep power. They have no other motive. In order to keep power, they have to be enemies. If the parties were to merge, there would be no party at all, and people would vote for individuals based on merit. The parties don't want that. They want people to pick a side and stay loyal to that side, so that the sides stay strong. They are like superpowers: they are only defined by their enemy, and only required because the other exists. 

America is not really that divided. We are a fairly homogenous people when it comes to politics. We all like free speech, and pretty much are fond of our constitution. We like the free economy and the American dream. We like our cars, our unique style of living, and we like being Americans. You will not see a politician in America arguing for something that is blatantly un-American, such as abolishing the 1st amendment or taxation without representation. At least, that politician would never be taken seriously except for by radical whack-jobs. Instead, the parties draw lines down things that are less crucial, and more divisive, like abortion or same-sex-marriage. Either way that debate goes, America is still America. The parties only want us to feel like we have to pick a side. They want us to feel like something crucial is at stake if the other guys win. What a crock of crap. Even if the other guys win, in 10 years the power will shift back, and the dance will continue. Its a complete con. I think political parties should be unconstitutional. I think persons running for office should all share funding from a communal pool, along with whatever funds they are capable of raising themselves. I think that each election should be a contest of ideas vs. ideas, and not donkeys vs. elephants. We don't need the parties. They need us. I say we should toss them and never let them come back. That way, we might some day see a President who appeals to the largest majority in the country: the moderates. What a day that would be, when the President could be both conservative about family values, but Liberal about health care.