The Presidential Election

Subject: The Election



Everywhere we go we are consumed with election propaganda. TV commercials, billboards, interviews, radio shows, magazines, headlines, etc. It has become so ingrained in our minds that a patient with amnesia will have no trouble remembering who is running. Many people feel strongly that reform and change are needed to promote the well being of our country, and I am no different. I want to live in an America that's safe, war free, debt free and with a stable economy. I think everyone has the same dream. Do I think that the difference between Obama and McCain is going to make that happen? No. How, you say? But they are so different. It's black and white. Republican and Democrat. Two different parties. How can you be so indifferent? The answer came to me in yet another conversation with the Luke Kim himself. We recently discussed our political opinions (which I never do with anyone) and we agree on nearly everything (which is really scary). While I won't go into much about my specific beliefs (as they don't pertain to the purpose of this blog) let's just say I'm an economist at heart. Everything has a cost and the government is entirely too inefficient. I don't want to go further because my inbox will fill with people hating me. Let's get back to the subject at hand.



Today I woke up at 11 am, had breakfast, read a bit, and got my swim in. Same as every other day except I had a dentist appointment. I managed to get there on time and as I sat down, the hygienist gave me a dose of the usual questions. When did you last have your teeth cleaned? Any recent cavities? After a few of these she sat me down and proceeded to commence the cleaning process.

"Oh and did you vote?" she asked out of curiosity.

"For what? Oh, the election! No."

"Are you planning to?"

"No.



It was a conversation ender. She concluded with something along the lines of, "You know it's really important! Only kidding, but you should consider voting."

"Thanks, I never have. I just went 21 years without giving it an ounce of thought." Only kidding, I didn't really say that. Part of me wanted to say something, but I had enough sense to keep my mouth shut. Well, open actually, since she was cleaning my teeth, but that's beside the point. I wanted to tell her that it didn't matter to me who became president. Although there are some differences between candidate A and B, they are more similar than one might think. Let's take a look at this from their point of view.



Pretend for example I'm presidential candidate A. What is my overall objective in running a multi-million dollar campaign? If you say to protect America or that their interests are helping the U.S. people, then you're living on Pluto. Their objective in advertising is to WIN THE ELECTION. Now, how as a presidential advisor would you go about doing this? I don't know about you, but I'd start by trying to get the MOST amount of votes possible. I would argue that presidential candidate A and B share this same overall objective and purpose in running. I think almost everyone would agree.



Okay moving on. Now we know (from extensive polling and other sources) that roughly 50% of the population will vote for presidential candidate A and roughly 50% will vote for candidate B. What does this tell us about the US population? Some might say that 50% are retarded. While I think the number is closer to 95%, that is not the point. What the advisors MUST infer from this data is that the majority of the country is somewhere in the middle on their political views. Surely if a presidential candidate came out and said, "I want to cut all government programs, legalize all drugs, etc. (although something radical might be necessary), this cannot lead to a presidential candidate getting elected. One needs to stay within the middle ground in order not to sway too many voters. In every election there are certain people who will always vote left, others right and then a large group in the middle called "swing" voters or something along those lines. If we had to put a number on them, we'd say they are in the 40 – 60% range, with 50% being the neutral point (having no political bias), 0% being extreme conservatist (fascist) and 100% being extreme liberalist (socialist). A perfect example of catering to these middle voters is during the presidential debates. When Barack Obama was asked about his stance on abortion, he responded unwillingly saying, "that's above my pay-grade." This was an obvious attempt to not sway to many voters to dislike the position he takes. After all, a smart advisor to the president knows that any stance considered too extreme will deter voters, regardless of what side. If he said, "I think we should under no circumstance allow abortions because the preservation of innocent life is the most important thing," then that would deter many pro-choice activists. This brings us to the principle that Luke introduced to me called the Median Voter Theory. It states that each presidential candidate will yield the most net votes if they cater to the median (or middle) of the population. This implies that they are not too far left and not too far right in order to attract the most votes. Thus if you compare presidential candidate A with presidential candidate B, they are essentially the same. One can argue that McCain deviates slightly from the median to the right allowing himself a new median (say the 40th percentile), whereas Barack Obama deviates slightly to the left (with an adjusted median at the 60th percentile). They then conform on other points to cater to this imbalance; they have to persuade other voters that they are in fact on their side. Once again, it comes down to math. This is precisely why candidates such as Mike Huckabee, who are extremely conservative have no prayer of winning. They take stances that are too firmly grounded to the right or left (in this case the right and one could argue that he's at the 15th percentile).



In order to understand the logic behind my next thought we must break down the voting system in terms of units. Everyone knows that going to the voting booth and voting for a specific candidate yields the candidate ONE vote. But what if there was another way to yield that candidate more votes? What if I blogged about voting for candidate A, and gave a list of reasons why he was superior to candidate B. That might yield him as many as 10 votes. What do you think is a greater benefit to that candidate (and in my opinion to the country, and my duty as an American, because I am promoting who I think will do the best for this nation as a whole)? What do you think that candidate A would rather have me do? Go to register and vote to say I voted, or actively try and get him votes and convert other voters? Then my purpose would be two-fold. Not only am I increasing the amount of votes candidate A will receive, I decrease the amount which his competitor (in this case candidate B) will receive. So essentially for every ONE person I convince or persuade to vote for A instead of B, then I am netting my candidate two votes. Take Colin Powell endorsing Obama and look at the positive impact it had on his campaign. Surely that is greater than actually going to the polls and placing a vote. And when has voting become so superficial about the voting process? You see these people walking around with stickers that say, "I voted." Great. Congratu-fucking-lations! As if that means they are somehow better than those who didn't vote, or dare I say more knowledgeable. Because most of them have no clue, they go and vote and wear stickers so everyone can see they voted and they are "good" citizens (I understand some of them have a clue and actually care). Patriotic! I am not ashamed to say I didn't vote. I don't pretend to care about proposition 15053. People also overemphasize the benefits of having a specific presidential candidate. As if their lives are doomed should A be elected and safe if B is elected. For the vast majority of Americans, that's complete bullshit. I understand there are tax differences, special benefits, etc., but that's life! It's variance people! Sometimes shit happens! Why am I going to spend 100 hours a week watching the news and follow every last bit of useless information about each candidate to the point where I know their third girlfriends favorite pet. Who really cares? Besides I have no control over that information and very abysmal amount when it comes to the overall outcome. I'd rather learn Italian, or cook pasta, or read a book, or do something that I have full control over, namely MY life.



Lastly, I do not feel the eminent need to vote as I feel others will do it for me. While that sounds very apathetic on the surface, let me explain. There is something that I learned in the short time I was in college that pertains to situations such as these. I took a class on philosophy that I found absolutely fascinating. My teacher (while we disagreed on many issues politically) did happen to have a knack for explaining things and making us think about things in a new light. Midway through a discussion about job and occupation choices, someone raised the issue of doing something that is productive to society for their occupation. As an aspiring poker player (a totally fruitless job), I kept my mouth shut. He described the following point which I found very intriguing.



He started off by describing a job which everyone would find no fault in. He used the example of a Priest or a Nun. Surely these jobs benefit society and at the top of the list when it comes to selflessness and helping others. However he used the extreme (hypothetical) example of what would happen if everyone was a nun. Well, we need to reproduce, right? Nuns and priests take vows of whatever to ensure that they will never have sex. That means no children. That also means no us. I raised my hand.



"But that's stupid, Clay!" Clay was his name (actually Clayton Littlejohn). He was one of the only professors I ever had that let us call him by his first name. I liked him for that. It made him seem like one of us. As a matter of fact, he pretty much was. He had a baby face and I'm sure he was often mistaken for a student. I always wondered how that played out with girls (they all seemed to love him), but I never asked.

"Why is it stupid, he asked?" He loved to play Devil's Advocate.

"Because a world will never exist in which everyone will be a nun or a priest", I said.

He paused as he smiled, "Exactly!"



The reality of the situation is that if I don't vote, others will. One might say, "well if everyone adopted that idea then nobody would vote." I agree. When that day comes, you'll probably see me wearing one of those stickers that say, "I voted."

Before concluding, I would like to note that I don't apply this philosophy to any other areas of my life, nor do I use it in arguments regularly. I just found it relevant to this issue. For example, I don't litter on the grounds that, "well nobody else will," so that makes it's acceptable if I do it. However, I find that littering is a separate issue because it negatively affects other people, whereas I don't find any intrinsic value in voting itself. Thus I feel it is better applied to this particular example.

I also want to make it known that my objective here is not to discourage those people who vote from taking part. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned before, I rely on them for a small portion of my reasoning behind not voting. So if anything, I thank you. I also feel that if someone does not have passion or strong willed opinions about politics, they shouldn't partake in the process. This method of logic is applied in every other aspect of our lives except this one. For some reason, people think there is a need to be political and worldly. That's not true! Just like if you don't like sports (so you don't watch games), that doesn't mean the industry won't thrive. Sure it will. As a matter of fact it will probably do better because the industry won't be filled with people who don't know what they are doing.

Lastly, and before I say this, I will go ahead and say I'm not sure as to how factual this is (although it sounds like something that would have taken place, but I don't feel like looking into it), I was just informed that when the U.S. was founded, only land owners were permitted to vote because they (our founders) wanted voters to have a vested interest in the outcome. Although that's another subject entirely, it might not be a bad idea to implement today.

I'm hesitant to write about something as "touchy" as this as I'm sure I'll be reading about it all this week. But at least comments will be interesting and I'm going to do my best to reply to them all; but, be warned, as I might be backed up a bit as controversial issues tend to have that affect. With that being said, feel free to write to alectorelli@gmail.com with your thoughts.



Until Next Election!



Cheers,

~ Trah ~

Again; special thanks to Luke Kim who has helped me on my journey in deviating from being a "live pro." Also, to my editor Jordan for taking the time to edit these blogs.