A Reminder, in Light of Today's Election

As people stream out to the polls to elect either Barack Obama or John McCain the next President of the United States of America, this election has focused around "change" from the current path this country has taken.

Keep in mind, however, that regardless of who is elected today, the REAL power to change things lies in the hands of the PEOPLE.

Wall Street meltdown? The American people let that happen, from seemingly intelligent businesspeople to everyday citizens.

Global Warming? This is one of the greatest catastrophes of all time, also created by humans like you and me.

Iraq War? True, this one was led by the current President, but Americans still enabled it to happen and continue.

This list could go on and on.

Ultimately, if the people of the country truly want change, they have to be more involved and not rely just on the President and other elected officials to make it happen. Talk is cheap, voting is cheap, but doing something about the problems on an individual level is the best way to really bring about change...

Presidential Candidates: Put Your Energy Where Your Mouth Is

Green, as we all know, is the latest buzz word in every corner of the country. "Green" alternative energy supplies, such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric, are talked about on a daily basis by laypeople on the street and congresspeople in Washington. Indeed, this topic is quite popular with John McCain and Barack Obama in their respective presidential campaigns.

Voters want to know what plans and ideas these candidates have about staving off our addiction to oil, due to its effects on climate change as well as its effects on our pocketbooks, among other reasons. And these candidates regularly bandy about how they would change things by investing in alternative energy sources, and so forth.

What I want to see happen is a candidate say-- "Okay-- I'm going to send a message to America and the world. When I get in the White House, I will turn it into a 'Green House' by installing solar panels on the roof, ensuring that the lighting fixtures use CFL bulbs, and make any other feasible retrofits to make this the most efficient building it can be."

Personally I can't think of a better way to make a point and encourage fellow Americans to do something about the dire situation we are in than by leading by example.

Unfortunately, leading by example is not always a hallmark of politicians. Let's see if either one of them goes for this alternative route...

Another Thought on Voting: The Offset

A fictional, though believable voting situation:

Georgie and Georgia are two loving spouses who have many things in common but inherently disagree when it comes to politics. One is a left wing sympathizer, the other is a right wing supporter. They go go vote and, guess what?, their votes cancel each other out completely. So... What's the point to their voting?

Okay, yes, every vote counts and it is important to have your say in an election, but if one person's vote is going to be cancelled out by another person's vote like G and G in the above example, perhaps it's just a waste of time for these particular people to go out and vote. Their votes offset one another and basically for them to go out of their way and spend precious time and resources to press a couple of buttons seems counterproductive in their minds. And they'd probably be right in some regards.

But, if we were to institute a simple and easy system for citizens to vote quickly and easily, perhaps online, then it would do no harm for these two people to vote, even if their votes do offset one another.

Here are more reasons why people would be happy to avoid voting:
-it takes too long
-it wastes gas to drive to polling location
-out of town that day
-sick
-terrible weather
-too busy
-etc., etc.

My point here: the act of voting expends too many resources, and people can easily find a reason to not vote and thus save those resources. The easier and more efficient voting can be made, the less people need to worry about expending said resources. And we all vote happily ever after.

Let's Modernize the Voting System, Shall We?

Ok, I'm going to tell you one huge reason why voting-aged people don't vote in high numbers like they should....

They always say go in the morning to vote when there's less of a rush compared to after work. Okay, that's sensible. So on primary election day this past "Super Tuesday" I went over to the school where I vote, somewhere around 8:15. Well lucky me, all the buses are rolling in and all the parents who pay for the buses but don't want their kids riding on the buses are dropping their kids off at the front door. (Mind you it's a beautiful morning, there's no reason to be driving them as the young'ins could have comfortably stood outside, but that's a different story.) So anyway it took me a good 10 minutes just to be able to park my car in an out of the way spot and get into the building, after previously spending 10 minutes driving out of my way to get to the school. I then walked in and registered, and just as they said, there was no rush of people. So I go in the booth and press two measley buttons and leave-- one button for my candidate of choice, one to enter the vote. It took me another 5 minutes to get out, and then it added 10 minutes for me to get to work. So basically it took away 30-45 minutes of my life to press two buttons.

Now I'm not one to complain, but rather I'm looking out for the future of this country... is there no way, what with all of today's brilliant technology for people to be able to vote online, or something similar? Who wants to take a half hour or more out of their day to press two buttons? I know there are plenty of computer geeks out there who can come up with a secure solution to this outdated form of voting in person... there's GOT to be a better way to do this than our current system. And think about all of the productivity lost, gasoline wasted, and people's time manning the polls that is needlessly spent when sombeody could just as easily open his or her laptop, press a few keys and be done in 2.3 minutes flat.

The lesson here: make it easy and people will vote in record numbers, guaranteed. GUARANTEED!!!

And for those of you wondering, I voted for Pedro.

Fixing Politics One Issue at a Time

For some reason, a thought about politics just flashed through my weary Monday evening brain. I can't say I've thought this one out a whole lot... more of a fleeting idea, if anything, but perhaps it has some merit. Take a gander...

So I'm thinking about politics in this country. And I'm thinking about how everything else operates in the "real world," because the political life certainly is far from what most people would consider real or normal. The two, for some reason, have gotten so far apart from the original beginnings that perhaps we need to take a look at how this system operates.

Back when this great country of America was started, there were probably a grand total of about five pressing issues, judging based on what was written in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. The main topics were roughly: Giving people rights while having fair representation in government; defending the country from Indians and foreign countries; slavery; taxes; and crime. Granted, there were probably more, but these were the core issues, and collectively these issues could be handled pretty well by elected officials.

Fast forward now to the present day. Think about the vast number of issues on the table at any given time: the current Iraq War (or, more generally, foreign relations); the environment; the economy; taxes; disease control; social security; crime; local interests; abortion; education... the list goes on, and indeed even these main topics each have dozens of sub-topics that are pretty in-depth.

So here's the question I ask: How can any given elected official possibly be able to follow each and every issue and subsequently vote intelligently on such a wide array of bills? Before answering that question, let's take a look at a typical NFL football team for a moment. It has a head coach, an offensive coach, a defensive coach, a special teams coach, a QB coach, an offensive line coach, a.... well you get the idea! Each coach has a specialty and does his best to nail down his particular area of expertise in order to improve the team as a whole.

Another example: If you go to a big-time law firm, you'll find lawyers practicing dozens of different areas of law. Need an environmental attorney? Fifth floor. Need criminal defense? Tenth floor. Looking for a tax lawyer? Eighth floor. Again, you get the idea.

Lastly, think about a major company like Pfizer. There are probably dozens of departments divided throughout the organization, each having a specific job, perhaps focusing solely on specific product lines out of their vast array of products. Everybody's got their defined job, and they do it to the best of their abilities.

Why, then, don't we elect officials to cover specific issues, or a limited umbrella of issues? Specialization has become the name of the game these days. Except in the wild world of politics, where a politician is expected to vote effectively on a frighteningly wide array of issues. I would think that if we had to vote elected officials based on their stance on specific issues, this country would be a lot more efficiently run and the whole "liberal" vs. "conservative" stereotypes and mental blocks would be a thing of the past.

That's all I got for this Monday. Now back to the real world.