Extrapolation.
There are moments in a persons life that alter the way they perceive things for the rest of time, should they allow it. I have been enlightened tonight and have overcome my silly conjecture when dealing with the voting of a president.
I was sitting in my room four years ago while watching the 2004 United States Presidential Election, and when it ended I was fuming. George W. Bush, whom I have no opinion about, won the seat in office without the support of the general population victory.
This was bullshit to me.
We live in a country that speaks of freedom and power through actions and beliefs, yet a man can defy the majority of the very people that he is representing by becoming their president. This is still a ludicrous idea to me, and it still gets me going. Don't get me wrong, republican fanboys, because I could care less about George W. being in office instead of Kerry or Gore; thus far in my life I have not witnessed a worthy person to take up the challenge of President. I am in no way judging this in an elitist fashion, I simply don't know how to merit the position of Presidency to a person I only know through media exposure; I don't feel as if I can represent an opinion without the bias of what I've been told by others. Due to this, then, anyone can take up office and have a fair shot at being successful. This rarely happens, considering it is an attempt to appease over three hundred million people -- an impossible task to say the least. It all ends up resulting in people being annoyed with the current office position, needing reconciliation with political balance, and yearning for an election. That is when my conjecture occurred, up until today.
I had a conversation with one of the most well-spoken individuals I know. He enjoys intellectual stimulation far more than any female anatomical offering, and truly enjoys enlightenment. This means two things: We are great friends, and we clash quite often. Nine times out of then, the clashing is in good taste and is handled with respect. If anyone knows me well, however, it is easy to understand how the discussions can quickly turn into aggravating arguments.
Tonight we had a conversation that started out light, but got heavier by the second. Here is my best reiteration I can come up with:
Me: Have you seen that new satirical video that Jessica Alba made? She is trying to provoke election awareness, encouraging people to vote.
Mike: Yeah, it's funny.
Me: I don't know why they are trying so hard, voting is a waste anyway. It's not like your vote matters, it's all determined by the electoral college.
Mike: That's...wow that's an ignorant statement.
Me: Four years ago, our President was elected by the EC when the general public voted against him. Tell me how anyone's vote counted that year?
That is a shortened version of what happened, and we both got pretty annoyed. In retrospect, I agree with both of us. I was so pissed off about the system failing one time in my entire life that I discarded it as useless.
This is ignorance.
The system works for the most part because of how the electoral college functions. Out of forty-four (lol @ me if that number is wrong) elections, only four of them have had the outcome of the EC disagreeing with the general population. That's a low number, and one that shouldn't be a determining factor of whether or not the system is broken.
I honestly think that had I not taken part in the conversation tonight, I might have held the grudge against our government my entire life. This weirds me out in more ways than one.
What if I have other grudges I need to just let go? Destroy?
It's a question I'll be asking from now on. I will try to make my stance be a bit less abrasive and firm, and allow for change and growth instead. If I want to study philosophy, I better start on that one right away.
Interesting how just a few minutes of arguing can enlighten you in ways you never imagined.
I love thinking.
I was sitting in my room four years ago while watching the 2004 United States Presidential Election, and when it ended I was fuming. George W. Bush, whom I have no opinion about, won the seat in office without the support of the general population victory.
This was bullshit to me.
We live in a country that speaks of freedom and power through actions and beliefs, yet a man can defy the majority of the very people that he is representing by becoming their president. This is still a ludicrous idea to me, and it still gets me going. Don't get me wrong, republican fanboys, because I could care less about George W. being in office instead of Kerry or Gore; thus far in my life I have not witnessed a worthy person to take up the challenge of President. I am in no way judging this in an elitist fashion, I simply don't know how to merit the position of Presidency to a person I only know through media exposure; I don't feel as if I can represent an opinion without the bias of what I've been told by others. Due to this, then, anyone can take up office and have a fair shot at being successful. This rarely happens, considering it is an attempt to appease over three hundred million people -- an impossible task to say the least. It all ends up resulting in people being annoyed with the current office position, needing reconciliation with political balance, and yearning for an election. That is when my conjecture occurred, up until today.
I had a conversation with one of the most well-spoken individuals I know. He enjoys intellectual stimulation far more than any female anatomical offering, and truly enjoys enlightenment. This means two things: We are great friends, and we clash quite often. Nine times out of then, the clashing is in good taste and is handled with respect. If anyone knows me well, however, it is easy to understand how the discussions can quickly turn into aggravating arguments.
Tonight we had a conversation that started out light, but got heavier by the second. Here is my best reiteration I can come up with:
Me: Have you seen that new satirical video that Jessica Alba made? She is trying to provoke election awareness, encouraging people to vote.
Mike: Yeah, it's funny.
Me: I don't know why they are trying so hard, voting is a waste anyway. It's not like your vote matters, it's all determined by the electoral college.
Mike: That's...wow that's an ignorant statement.
Me: Four years ago, our President was elected by the EC when the general public voted against him. Tell me how anyone's vote counted that year?
That is a shortened version of what happened, and we both got pretty annoyed. In retrospect, I agree with both of us. I was so pissed off about the system failing one time in my entire life that I discarded it as useless.
This is ignorance.
The system works for the most part because of how the electoral college functions. Out of forty-four (lol @ me if that number is wrong) elections, only four of them have had the outcome of the EC disagreeing with the general population. That's a low number, and one that shouldn't be a determining factor of whether or not the system is broken.
I honestly think that had I not taken part in the conversation tonight, I might have held the grudge against our government my entire life. This weirds me out in more ways than one.
What if I have other grudges I need to just let go? Destroy?
It's a question I'll be asking from now on. I will try to make my stance be a bit less abrasive and firm, and allow for change and growth instead. If I want to study philosophy, I better start on that one right away.
Interesting how just a few minutes of arguing can enlighten you in ways you never imagined.
I love thinking.
posted by Clayton at 8:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home