i'm a journalism school dropout.
at the tender age of 19, quitting the print journalism program felt incredibly freeing. i finally really understood the term "took a load of my chest" because i really did seem to have a new lightness. sure, i had some worry that the Ws--indicating that I had somewhat impulsively withdrawn from my classes--would mar by transcript, but those worries were invalidated when i got into grad school at NYU a year and a half later.
however, a fair portion of my undergrad experience was spent in introductory journalism classes, and while that hardly makes me any sort of election coverage expert (here's where i shamelessly link one of the very few articles i wrote as a budding reporter that just happens to be about an election), it makes me want to add my wee voice to the cacophony of people talking about the election.
while there will be many persons to be elected to many positions in 2016 only one election is the election. the presidential race.
with our sluggish system of checks and balances, i honestly don't have an absurd amount of faith in a united states president bringing to fruition all of his or her campaign promises. i hold out for maybe one progressive new agenda item to make it into law at a sloth's pace.
the presidential election gets a lot of media attention because it is the most powerful political position in this country, and since electors in every state have a say, its got the largest demographic pull. though, honestly, people could make a bigger difference by voting strategically for members of congress than sweating over who to make our president.
not that our president-elect isn't important. when he or she receives a clear majority, it's fair to claim he or she has a mandate. you can't gerrymander when all the lands get to vote--the masses (or rather the percentage of the masses that make it to their polling place on a certain tuesday) have their say.
still, one of the biggest issues that was covered in my intro to news reporting class in 2007 was that elections were covered like a horse race. "And here we come around the corner, and it looks like Bernard Sanders is ahead by a hair but that could just be that he didn't use as much product as the other candidates." polls are covered more than issues. in 2016, it's polls and gaffes and petty tiffs that are widely reported.
this emphasis on numbers moves us from the issues and real debate to playing a game.
in 2012, i spent a fair amount of time with my absentee ballot (i was over a thousand miles from home that election day) splitting hairs over which presidential candidate to support.
perhaps, i give my political leanings away when i admit here that in 2012 i voted for the green party candidate, Jill Stein.
she was the candidate whose brand of idealism jived most closely with my brand of idealism. i still had mulled over whether i should vote for Barack Obama to bolster his popular vote numbers. i was playing that blasted game where i put strategy over my personal conscience.
Jill Stein received 469,501 votes which is .36% of the popular vote. according to wikipedia, she is actually the most successful female presidential candidate in united states' history (actually all the facts in this paragraph are courtesy of wikipedia).
i'm not saying here that we need to elect third-party candidates. although, it would be interesting if we developed a multiparty system--democratic evolution! i just think, especially as we are in the midst of the primaries, that it is okay to be undecided, but we shouldn't be undecided because we are weighing strategy against the ideals we truly wish to be upheld.
i have my own hopes for election outcome and i graciously accept that they may be different from others. in the end, i think we all want peace, happiness and prosperity. perhaps one day we'll find the quickest route there...
...though i think in the political realm paving the route is a lot more about local involvement than one guy or gal with with the title president before his/her name.
