Consider first what you are voting for

Before pulling the lever (or mailing your ballet, or touching the screen, et cetera) first consider what you are voting for. Whoever wins the presidential election this year will have accumulated an unprecedented number of votes; the loser will likely receive the second highest total to date. Nolons volons, a vote this year is also a tacit vote for the political system that this country offers, along with the dialog that the two front running candidates have put forth.

The election of 2008 subjected the voting public to the most protracted campaign in US history. However, for all this length, it will also likely be looked back on as one that was slimmest on content. Two years of campaigning and the candidates could find time for only three lackluster 90 minute debates. Even more insulting, the three “debates” were rehearsed and intellectually offensive. They offered no insight, no dialog, and little truthfulness. Instead, the candidates molested the format into what amounted to taking turns rehashing worn-out snippets of stump speeches and platitudinous half-truths. During these debates neither candidate was willing to address (or, more fearfully, perhaps not able comprehend) one of the key causes of the financial crisis: the overextended budgets of the majority of average American citizens. Nor would either candidate honestly discuss how the $700 billion bailout would alter their platforms. Similar critiques could be offered for every policy areas feigned to be covered during the debates. Issues like net-neutrality, ethanol subsides, gay marriage, et cetera were not fortunate enough to be distilled down to boilerplate clichés and myopic commentary. What a sham. And remember, the format and rules of the debates were determined by the candidates. This burlesque mockery was their machination: the candidates deciding market-tested ad buys were what this country deserved to make its most important decision.

And consider this, with an environmental crisis already in the works, the candidates could find the time to subjugate themselves to a forum on faith, but never once considered a forum on science. The issues of tomorrow will not be informed by a dogmatic book cobbled together two thousand or so years ago, but rather through the persistent pushing of knowledge and continued questioning of the status quo.

At a more holistic level, consider the two party system that the Democrats and Republicans have bolstered and sanctified. This year, not surprisingly, there was no third party representation at the debates. During the Republican primaries Ron Paul was denied debate participation despite running third in Iowa. This lack of outside voice effectively silences all opinions that are not timid or watered down. This does not advance the country, but rather mires the republic with the fetid and rotting ideals that invited the current pressing calamities, be they pecuniary or environmental.

American politics leaves one with the inspired choice between voting for a candidate that treats them like a child, bred from a system that fosters mediocrity, or not voting and handing over the election to the masses, to the vulgus prafanum. Not really much of a choice. And at the end of the day I do not think either party would be upset to learn that they drove the thinking populous away from the voting booths. Perhaps then they could scrap the entire debate artifice and instead have the candidates compete in televised karaoke contest. The rating would surely be higher.