Politics

It’s really a shame that we’re often instructed to not talk about religion or politics in public because these are two of the most interesting topics known to man. Of course this rule, like so many others, was designed to protect idiots from other idiots. Given that so many people today believe that anyone in the opposite part is a complete moron, it’s easy to envision harmless political discourse mushrooming into physical assault – especially in the more violent past. Of course if you believe that the other person is utterly and completely wrong in every way, it’s hard see anything productive coming from it (rendering religious discourse all but impossible between “We’re right and you’re going to hell” religions). I guess it’s kind of ironic that I think mostly everyone else is totally wrong and yet I think it’s productive to yell about how politics is messed up… but we’re moving past that.

This cut-and-dry, “I’m right, you’re wrong” philosophy – which prevents productive political discourse – is nurtured by our two party system. Given the sheer size of the population and the polarity of the respective parties’ views, it seems implausible that two parties can describe the views of most of the population. In reality, people fall in line behind party lines because it’s easy and because third parties are mostly a social joke. Many will tell you that a vote for a third party candidate is wasting your vote… and they’re so sadly wrong that I want to publicly vilify them for the disservice they are doing the youth of this nation. If you believe that your voice isn’t accurately represented, isn’t a vote for a third party a voice saying “I want more choices”? Ironically, the only time a third party vote is bad, is when there is a viable third party. In some cases it’s possible that a third party candidate will split like-minded voters and leave the candidate farthest from their own views as the frontrunner.

How do we only have three debates? Are we living in the 19^th century where transportation and distribution costs are so high that candidates are limited to three not completely scripted orations? Everyone who ever complained about George Bush’s stupidity should be screaming at their senator to propose a bill mandating more debates. But can we really complain about GW slipping past our incredible collective ability to sense idiocy? We don’t even require candidates to answer the actual questions posed to them. Remember that question that Obama answered well during the first three questions of the second debate? No? That’s because neither him nor that ol’ maverick McCain answered a single question during the first three rounds of the debate. (I can’t speak for the rest of it because I turned if off but I hope they actually gave an answer eventually.) This technique is most effective in high school history – where you have no clue what the answer is so you write a lot about something you do know – but it shouldn’t be acceptable during a debate. Yet most commentators the next day had more to say about who they thought won (which apparently means “who appealed the most to completely retarded people”) than about the fact that the debate was an insult to our collective national intelligence.

Not that we don’t deserve the insult. When the candidates did get around to actual answers (again, I’m just guessing they did since I never saw it) they took the most absurdly simplistic views on the subject. Obviously the issue of financial regulation is more complex than “regulations are good” and “no more regulations”. I was sure,”Cancer: Bad or Good?” was somewhere on the docket.

So we only have two candidates, we only require three debates, and we don’t actually mandate that anyone actually answers a question. And we’re surprised when a moron sneaks in the Whitehouse? So here’s my plan for fixing up this process. First off, end the conventions. It’s a tremendous waste of money, not to mention paper, and yet Democratic who claim to care about the environment love throwing their paper around at the DNC convention (I’d be amazed if liberals weren’t so consistently hypocritical). Ok, so this isn’t really a critical step to my process but I just want the pathetic cheerleaders that travel across the country to have to find something else to do every four years.

But seriously… do away with the two party system on a national level. Pick a dozen or so candidates from a number of different pools – major political parties, branches of government, the private sector – and have them square off in a rigorous process which emphasizes more evaluation and less public appearances designed to fire up people who already know who they are going to vote for. Instead of a trio of PR stunts, replace the “debates” with a dozen or so forums broadcast live and posted on the internet for public viewing. Hell, maybe it’s going too far but I’m all in favor of doing rounds of trivia questions and possibly a poker tournament. Isn’t seeing how someone responds under a little pressure better than watching them recite memorized talking points? Political parties can still exist but they’d operate only at the sub-presidential levels (with the hope that this method might be successful enough to be expanded down the branches of the electoral tree. I know this would require people to “think” but couldn’t be just try it out?