When the Brexit was being discussed just prior to the vote, someone came to me with an interesting idea: Not, “Would you want to vote to leave the EU?” but more, “If you weren’t already part of the EU, would you vote to join it today?”
This simple change to the question altered the premise of which side made more sense to vote for, and if more people had been given that idea, instead of all the random facts and fabricated figures, I suspect the vote would have been even more favorable on the Leave side than the close call it was in the end. It changed the idea to choosing whether or not to accept the strict rules and regulations of the EU, as opposed to being scared of what could happen if the UK were to vote to leave.
Don’t worry, I’ve not put the wrong title on this topic, it really is about Trump and Hillary, but I mentioned the above because there’s another way of thinking about the US Election 2016 too. Will you:
Vote Hillary because Trump is a misogynist racist?
or
Vote Trump because Hillary just offers us more of the same establishment views which haven’t been working for the people for a number of years?
Why can’t we describe who we would vote for without mentioning the other candidate in a negative way? Why does it have to come down to pitting one candidate against the other? Why do neither of these two candidates seem to have anything of any value to say, other than putting each other down? Why is there video evidence going back decades, where both candidates seem to hold completely opposite views to the views they hold today, almost as if they’ll say anything to get elected, regardless of their statements’ honesty? The answer is simple: Neither candidate is a good choice. As the saying goes, we have to pick the best of a bad bunch.
With the world on the brink of a financial meltdown, with US-Russia, US-China and US-and-practically-the-entire-Middle-East tensions at their worst since the Cold War, and with millennials more interested in catching Pokemon in the streets than learning about the politics of their rapidly-declining country, what we need is a candidate who can offer real solutions for our problems. Someone can state categorically how they can bring manufacturing back to the US. How the middle class can be rebuilt with jobs that see a steady pay increase each year, at a higher rate than that of inflation. And until the system stops being controlled by the super-rich, that’s never going to happen, because changes like those would negatively affect the all-powerful corporations. They’d have to start paying their taxes, and the little people would start to see an increase in their living standards for the first time in over a decade, making them less easy to control.
What I propose is this:
The question shouldn’t be, “Which candidate is better than the other?” but more, “Will the candidate I’m choosing change America for the better, for everyone, not just the ruling elite?” If the answer to that question is “No” then don’t vote for that candidate. Does this person represent your views? Do they have your best interests at heart? Why would you ever vote for someone if they don’t care what’s best for you?
If the truth is that neither party would really look out for the needs of the people, which in the 2016 Election is clearly the case, then what we need is not another sham election.
We need revolution.
Not just a third party who has a meaningful chance of being voted into power, offering better choices… but a better system. A new system whereby those with the most money are unable to buy favors, where everyone’s vote has equal weight, and for us to be able to make the changes the US so desperately needs if it is to remain a viable world super power.