In less than two weeks, the fifty-seventh presidential election will be upon us. Unfortunately for the American people, I will be unable to vote. In fact, less than one fourth of the student body will be able to vote in this election and maybe even less than that since voting is seriously mainstream. However, student’s apparent lack of power in this year’s election does not stop a good percentage of them from getting into loud, somewhat factually correct, arguments full of profanity over who is the best candidate. I haven’t seen people this riled up since last year’s student alliance election.
When people choose who they want to vote for it’s pretty much written in stone. So, when there are debates or interviews with the candidates, people have already made up their minds that everything Obama says is a lie created by terrorists in Switzerland or every comment Romney makes is a trick, aimed at getting us to destroy Canada. This kind of mindset is funny when you read about it on political blogs or watch it on Saturday Night Live, but it’s painfully awkward when you witness it in the middle of dinner with your friends.
Whenever I find myself in a political argument I try to get out as quickly as possible because (a) I have no idea what I’m talking about and (b) confrontation makes me say weird things like “What are you even doing with your life?” and “You’ll never amount to anything!” Sadly, most people don’t share this view so I just fade into the background and watch as the “conversation” becomes more and more heated until the participants are shouting words like “fiscal” and “incumbent” at each other. I was in eighth grade during the last election and it was still one of the most stressful times of my life. People would start fights in the middle of class over the election even though not one student in the entire school would be able to vote for at least four years.
I think this problem stems from the fact that there are only two real parties people vote for. Yes, I know there is the Libertarian Party, Independent candidates, and the Green Party (I actually got the Green Party on an online quiz, which is strange, because I do absolutely nothing for the environment). But really, there are only two parties that have a chance of winning. Americans don’t have the longest attention span; even with only two candidates getting media coverage no one knows who’s saying what, why, or if it’s sexist/racist/ant-Semitic.
Imagine the mayhem that would ensue with a third candidate. Only a small number of Americans are voting for a third party, and a good percentage of those people are only doing so to talk about what out-of-the-box thinkers they are. I am very happy that you are your own person but I don’t need to hear a thirty minute monologue about the inner-workings of the Libertarian Party.
The problem with the two-party system is that more often than not, people align themselves with one party and leave it at that. I know people who would vote for the candidate in their party despite whether or not they agree with their views. Voldermort could be running for office and they’d try arguing, “But seriously, his campaign promises have some really good points…” The two-party system-and parties in general-is what drives people to hate their fellow Americans for having different views.
If there were no parties and random people just decided to run for president, there would still be a debates and feelings of ill will between people voting for different candidates. But then that election would end and another one would follow with new candidates and there wouldn’t be constant animosity between two parties. People would finally stop posting those paragraph long statuses about how the Republicans or Democrats are going to destroy America with the help of Biden’s awkward phrases or Ryan’s creepy smile.