Well, it really isn't. While having only 2 parties and thus candidates upsets some of you, it doesn't upset me. In the end they are politicians and having only 2 choices means that you have less options for choosing bad. The problem that I have with the U.S. election system is that in no way they actually take notice of the majority's vote. And here is why: especially if you're not familiar with their system.
In U.S. you become president based on electoral votes. This is a number assigned to each state and furthermore divided in the state's districts. To win you need to gather 270 of these "points".Now: states as Alaska, D.C., Delaware,both Carolinas and few others have only 3 votes. While California has 55.So if someone is elected in California, the opposing runner can win the 5 mentioned above, plus Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Washington, and the first candidate will still win. So that is 1 state casting other 12 into nothingness.And so,a person can become president in the U.S. winning in about 20-25% of the states. I know what you're thinking. some states have more people, such as New York having way more than Oregon for example.Yes, it is true, but what happens if not all go to vote. Well, if we take the example from above of California vs the 12, California can have 1 person voting in each district while all the other states have a 100% poll presence. California will still win.
A poorly designed structure, that the citizen have embraced and lived with for years and years. They do not question the application and implication and so they silently vote not for a president but for their vote to mean nothing. The whole charade and drum chorus is for nothing else than bathing the population's brain into muddy politic schemes. So when it comes to elections, I dare to say that even the current U.S. arch-enemy, Iran, is more democratic.
No comments:
Post a Comment