The United States has called itself the land of the free, home of the brave for some time. As of late…well…there’s been some questions about that. Haven’t we become more of the land of the afraid? Are our fears really justified, or have they been stoked by the forces, which have hijacked our government?

The theories regarding why and how this has happened abound, but frankly, doesn’t this have something to do with our broken electoral system, with the fact that the presidents are not truly elected by the electorate, but rather by a huge, overbuilt machine, which includes three-year (or longer) campaigns, caucuses, primaries, polls, conventions, television ads and finally, after the big election day arrives – your vote gets nullified by the electoral college? Doesn’t democracy mean, “rule by the people”? If that is the case, why do presidents get elected in the U.S. with often considerably less than 50 percent of the popular vote? Doesn’t that in effect mean that the majority of the voters did not want the candidate?

The process of getting elected really comes down to the amount of money raised and to the number of TV commercials, rather than issues, the candidates’ abilities and character. Our comments are made and written as an exercise of our patriotic rights and concerns and we tend to strongly question those who call any criticism – no matter how constructive and well intended – as “un-American”, or “unpatriotic”. It is our intention to help in regaining the ideals which made America great and it seems like the intention of the critics is not nearly as transparent.

As someone wise has said some time ago: “Most people and countries usually get the leaders that they deserve”. Do we really and truly deserve another apparatchik to “lead” us? Is that the best we can get? Why? I’d like to hear your opinions on these subjects as well.

How Should We Judge the Candidates?

To begin with, we have had the same two families in the White House, since 1988. This is almost like if we had a dynastic monarchy again. Although an enlightened monarchy might be a better solution than our present “democratic” system, in which presidents and other politicians are not really elected by popular vote, what is going on here? Are Jenna or Chelsea next in line?

Why should we even consider having someone as president, who has consistently voted along with the neocons for the Iraq war? The lowest in decades, or maybe even centuries international standing of the United States hasn’t happened overnight, but it did come about rather quickly – in just a few short years. The highest budget deficit in the world’s history also was created rather quickly, but we certainly did manage to make a bunch of billionaires out of many millionaires – with our money. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could top $2 trillion, or more, the same amount that avian flu pandemic could cost.

Considering all of that, and much, much more, shouldn’t the presidential candidates, who have played along with this game, be disqualified up front, before all the caucuses, primaries, conventions and yes, the November, 2008 elections?

Let’s Have Democratic Elections For Once

I know that I mentioned this before, but the U.S. system of presidential elections really riles me. How can we continue with this ludicrous and drawn out process of caucuses, polls, primaries, conventions, debates (OK, these might be useful to a degree) and finally elections, which really don’t mean very much, as the electoral college really ends up electing the president? It stands to reason, that if our elections are to be democratic, a majority, meaning at least 50 percent of the voters should cast their ballots for the winning candidate. Am I dreaming, or is our system different? Many of our presidents do get elected with much less than 50 percent of the vote, which of course means that most Americans DID NOT want that individual in office.

And why the heck do we need to weed out the most robust party candidate through the endless caucuses and primaries, TV ads and conventions? Let every qualified and willing person (maybe this is the only way of finally getting somebody decent, honest and competent into the White House) run for president of the US of A. Even if we get 25, or more names on the ballot, is that a real problem? I don’t think so. If one of the candidates, whether he, or she is representing one of the two major parties, or not gets 50 percent, or more of the popular vote, the election is over and decided. If on the other hand, not one of the candidates gets that required minimum, the top two simply would have to take part in a runoff election, the next day, or next week, or even next month. It is highly doubtful that a third round would be necessary, unless of course everybody decides to stay home to watch the latest American Idol, or Bachelor, Bachelorette, Dancing With the Stars, or an all-important football game. Since we are one of the first supposedly democratic countries of the new era in the Western World, why is it taking us so long to catch up to almost everybody else?

Most democratic countries do have a 50-percent requirement, with an additional requirement that at least 50 percent of those eligible to vote, actually vote. Sounds logical? Of course it does. Why haven’t we implemented that system here then? Some say that this might require runoff elections and that most Americans are so disinterested in our political process that it would be close to impossible to convince them not only to show up in numbers exceeding the required 50% for the first election, but even harder to have them show up lets say, a week later for the runoff. Geez! What enthusiasm!

Although I admit that I am not completely sure if enough people will show up to vote, I do believe that it would be finally worth a try, and that with sufficient and viable appeals about patriotic and citizenship duties, we can get the Americans off their couches and from in front of the boob tubes and into the voting booths, and finally have some long overdue democratic elections.

Is it Really All About Money?

After nine months of fund raising and campaigning, the U.S. presidential candidates have raised about $420 million. This money chase seems to be on track to collect an unprecedented $1 billion by the time the game is over. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete – a record sum.

I know that campaigns tend to be expensive in many different ways, especially because television ads cost a lot of money, but this is ludicrous. It really comes down to the amount of money raised and to the number of TV commercials, rather than issues, the candidates’ abilities and character. How and why have we stooped so low? There really should be a way to get elected in the U.S. more on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria, instead of TV ads, corporate sponsorships, etc. As an example: Does the fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has $89 million + on hand mean that she is a better candidate than lets say, Ron Paul, who’s campaign has $8.2 million? Is that the kind of criteria that really does and should matter?

Looking into the voting records of both of the above candidates paints a very different picture. Clinton has largely (with some exceptions) voted along with the Bush administration and Paul (also with some exceptions) seemed largely to vote his conscience. Maybe more voters should make the effort to look into their candidate’s voting records, rather than rely on paid television ads. With the popularity of the Internet that’s not really so very hard.

First, Get Your Facts Straight

Fact Check.Org has some interesting comparisons between what some of the candidates have claimed…and the facts. Worth taking a look.