Frankly, Political campains in general irritate the crap out of me. I am so sick of hearing about all the bad stuff that "such and such a person" has done that I could just puke.

OF COURSE we are going to find something wrong with the candidates if we look long enough. . .no one is perfect. We should just all resign ourselves to the fact that someone is going to be unhappy no matter who is elected, and move on with our lives.

If your campain is run soley on the idea that you are a better person then your competition, rather then false guarantees of tax reductions, free cable, and world peace. . . well, you really aren't any better off. No one wants to vote for someone who thinks they are better then anyone else, let alone someone who makes promises that we all know can't be kept.

Besides, In my case, I can vote for my county, and my district, and my state, and it might actually impact something. . . but I live in Montana. Regardless of who I want to be president, ultimately it isnt going to matter. We only have three electoral votes, which ultimately means absolutely nothing. The person/s who make those votes could go along with who-ever he/she wants. They could vote according to what we Montanan's want, but they are in no way obligated to do so. For all we know, they could vote for a random third party candidate. . . indeed, they might as well do so. . . our miserly three votes aren't going to make much of an impact against a state like California who holds HUNDREDS of votes.

Case in point: Why bother voting if you know it isn't going to do a damn thing?

Don't get me wrong. Tomorrow I will go to the voting booths like every other consciencious American. I will cast my vote. I will probably listen half-heartedly to the results on the news. And then, I will go and hide my head under my covers] and scream uncontrollably as campain plans for 2004 commence on the 8th.

anemotis discusses why presidential elections are a joke in her write-up. I have to disagree. They are not a joke, but actually are very important, very serious events in the history of the U.S.(to which anemotis refers) and to countries in general.

What might be troubling is the tenor of presidential campaigns. It is possible to conceive of presidential campaigns that are run with more dignity and seriousness than they are now. However, that does not make the process of elections a joke. It shouldn't be hard to distinguish the two concepts.

One need only look at elections elsewhere to see how important they actually are. In Mexico in the summer of 2000, the ruling party PRI was finally ousted in a presidential campaign, the first time this had happened since the PRI was formed. ( Note, the party officially formed in the mid 1940s, but had been organized as a political party under different names since about 1920.) That presidential election will have a significant impact on Mexico for years to come, and will also impact relations between the U.S. and Mexico. Surely, that isn't what we expect from a JOKE is it?

I also suggest that one look at countries where there are no presidential elections, and consider that presidential elections would likely significantly change those countries, most likely in a positive manner. Again, that is not the outcome we would associate with a joke.

Lastly, let me note that even though Montana only has three electoral college votes, it is not likely that that electors are allowed to pick anyone they want. Most states have adopted legislation that binds electors to choose the candidate that won the popular vote in that state. However, I do not know if Montana is one of them.

I've always agreed with the statement that "if you don't vote, you've no right to complain". And, being a person who complains a great deal, I intend on voting in the 2004 election (I'm 17, so I couldn't vote this time around). Granted, the politicians could be better (Wouldn't McCain vs Bradely vs Nader have been so much better than Bush vs Gore?). Granted, the process could improve. But we really do have the best democracy in the world, and we should appreciate it. I think this election proved how much a vote does matter. And, I think, the electorial college does serve a purpose. If it didn't exist, then a candidate could just win population centers, and win the election, instead of winning most of the country. I'm still not sure weither or not we should abolish it, maybe we should. But I don't think it's as bad as popular opinion thinks. Bill O'Reilly makes a convincing argument for it, which persuaded me to look at it in more complex terms than just "the person who gets the most votes should win", although the knee-jerk reaction is to agree with that. I digress. Anyway, there's definatly room for improvement, and alltruistic politicians would be great, but the process is still a good thing, and at least we have a choice.

"No American will ever again be able to say, with a straight face,
that their vote doesn't count"
- Bill Clinton, the day after the election. (paraphrased)